PICASSO CHAP VIII END

CHAPTER VIII

Conclusion

Over one hundred and fifty examples of Picasso's work which refer to the art of the masters have been presented in this study illustrating that Picasso maintained a relationship with art history throughout his production as an artist. His raids on art history served him in many ways. I offer the following as possible explanations for this practice.

Picasso may have substituted the masters for father figures. He was so accomplished an artist that by the time he was fourteen his father, who was also his art teacher, turned over his brushes and palette to his son and swore never to paint again. What an impression this must have made on the young artist! Picasso then turned to the masters for his instruction, making them his new role models.

Once, while discussing the influence of El Greco and Cezanne in his work, Picasso explained “Naturally! Every painter must have a father and a mother” (Picasso qtd. in Duncan 521).

In describing Picasso's "Las Meninas" of 1957 after Velazquez, John Berger suggested that the distortions of Picasso's copy seem“only to rob Velazquez: to honor him perhaps at the same time robbing him. Even- and again like a child- thus to ask for his protection. In his own painting Velazquez is so effortlessly himself, and in Picasso's painting he is so overwhelmingly large, that he might be a father. It may be that as an old man Picasso here returns as a prodigal to give back the palette and brushes he hadacquired too easily at the age of fourteen” (Berger 185).

There is, moreover, a long tradition of artists receiving their instruction from the masters by copying the masters' works. Picasso's early training certainly included many hours of studying the works of the masters in his native Spain and he did the same on his numerous visits to Paris before he finally moved there in 1904. Many of the works Picasso studied were in the Prado Museum and the Louvre Museum. Penrose stated that “Picasso did not let his work exclude visits to the museums, which were one of his chief amusements during

these early days in Paris. By this time he knew his way round most of them. He spent long hours with the Impressionist paintings in the Luxembourg and was often seen in the Louvre, where he was much intrigued by the Egyptian and Phoenician art styles, which in those days were generally considered barbaric. The gothic sculpture of the Musee de Cluny called for careful scrutiny and he was aware in a more distant way of the charm of Japanese prints. They had already been in vogue for some years and therefore interested him less. It gave him greater satisfaction to discover things not yet noticed by others” (Penrose 76).

Penrose also said “The summer and autumn of 1901 had been a period of fruitful exploration and experiments in the adaptation of borrowed techniques. He had learned much by copying indirectly and by transposing the work of masters he admired” (Penrose 76).

Picasso's study of the masters extended well beyond his formative years; indeed, he continued this practice throughout his career, combining an increasing number of sources into compositions which became more and more complex. From the early "La Vie" (10), "Family of Saltimbanques" (21), the "Demoiselles" (40) culminating in "Guernica" (88), the number of influential sources increase. "Guernica" demonstrates Picasso's most ambitious attempt to combine the similar content of numerous masterworks into one powerful statement on suffering and war using the traditional "massacre of the innocents" theme.

Hilton commented on this extended period of study from the masters by Picasso “He saw as much painting as he could, in the Louvre, in dealers' galleries, in other artists' studios. He painted a great deal himself, and began that process, crucial in all young artists, of relating his own work to the avant-garde of the day. It is important to recognize that this period of adjustment, for Picasso, was protracted” (Hilton 11).

Francoise Gilot told of Picasso visiting the Louvre Museum during the 1940's and having his work hung next to Zurbaran's "St. Bonaventure on His Bier" (1A), Delacroix's "Death of Sardanapalus" (92A), "The Massacre of Chios" (10F) and "Women of Algiers" (89B). He visited the Louvre monthly to study "Women of Algiers" and, in addition, he studied Courbet's "The Studio" (34A) and The Burial at Ornans" (20C). When asked what he thought of Delacroix

Picasso had said: "That bastard, he's really good." At that time Picasso was sixty-five years old. What made Picasso unique was that he never outgrew his need to borrow from the masters. After 1945 this occurred regularly. During World War II, Francoise Gilot described two small gouaches Picasso painted during the occupation of Paris.They were painted from a reproduction of a bacchanalian scene by Poussin, "The Triumph of Pan" (91A). He told Francoise Gilot he planned to paint his own version of Delacroix's "Women of Algiers." This was in 1946 and demonstrated that Picasso still had that need to identify with and challenge the accepted masters of his profession. He had to see how he measured up to their reputations. He appeared to have a need to compare himself and his work with them on their "own grounds" so to speak. His early copies proved he was equal to the old masters. As an "old master" himself he seemed content to caricature their work much like a child defacing photographic reproductions in magazines by drawing over the faces. The image was still there, but it was definitely changed after Picasso worked it over. His imposed forms do not necessarily combine with the content of the masters' work. To Picasso this may have been more of an act of magic whereby he "devoured" the work of the masters and acquired their creative "power." (Picasso qtd. in Gilot 192).

Picasso's art dealer Kahnweiler commented “Picasso took me up to the attic once again with his nephew Fin to look at the pictures after Delacroix's "Femmes d'Alger," on which he was working. Picasso said: "I wonder what Delacroix would say if he saw these pictures." I replied that I thought he would understand. Picasso: "Yes, I think so. I would say to him: "You had Rubens in mind, and painted a Delacroix. I paint them with you in mind, and make something different again” (Kahnweiler 12).

Picasso seemed to express some concern about this practice yet dismissed it as one common to artists and felt justified by his results.

He demonstrated this identification with the masters early in his career. Hilton commented on an early self-portrait (4) “It might be retitled "Portrait of the Artist as Van Gogh," for the derivation is so frank as to amount to some sort of identification. Like the late tragic portraits of Van Gogh that Picasso would have seen at Vollard's, the painting is basically frontal but turned slightly towards the left, and employs exactly the same powerful and compact single outline against a very shallow

background...” (Hilton 22).

Hilton pointed out that in the painting Picasso made himself look older and as if he had suffered much more. He related this activity by Picasso to that of artists who circulated self-portraits or mutual portraits among Van Gogh's and Gauguin's friends at the end of the 1880's inscribed "a son copain."

Hilton suggested that “The young Picasso, tactfully but also proudly, announces a half-reverential camaraderie with the artists who had preceded him, who were close to him though not personally known. He never painted Braque, or any other living artists, with serious intent” (Hilton 22).

Francois Gilot related a statement which Picasso made as he was showing her prints from his Vollard Suite of the 1930's “You see this truculent character here, with the curly hair and moustache? That's Rembrandt, or maybe it's Balzac, I'm not sure. It's a compromise, I suppose. It doesn't really matter. They're only two of the people who haunt me. Every human being is a whole colony you know” (Picasso qtd. in Gilot 45) .

Picasso was also quoted by Gilot as saying “Every painter takes himself for Rembrandt...Everybody has the same delusions” (Picasso qtd. in Gilot 45).

Picasso's delusions may have been jolted by the critical reviews of his first exhibition in Paris in 1901, accounting for his attempting to conceal the sources for his work after that exhibition. Even though this exhibit was a success in terms of sales, the twenty year old artist was criticized for being an imitator of Steinlen, Lautrec and Van Gogh. Even Gustave Coquiot, a Picasso supporter and organizer of that first exhibition admitted “Arriving in Paris very young, Picasso entered upon his Steinlen period. He painted the street, gardens, houses, the boys and the women of the town. He painted them very quickly; up to as many as ten paintings per day. Soon there were so many that his first exhibition was organized, at Vollard's in June, 1901...He was getting tired of this plagiarism; and from Steinlen he went on to Lautrec...” (Coquiot qtd. in Daix 36).

This negative criticism did not prevent Picasso from continuing to use the

work of past masters. He only did so more covertly. Perhaps reacting to this early criticism, he made his borrowing after this time less obvious until his masterful organization of past art orchestrated "Guernica." He said in 1935 “I should like to manage things so that one would never see how my picture was made” (Picasso qtd. in Leymarie 185).

After the successful reception of "Guernica" Picasso overtly reconstructed works by famous artists and now was praised for these parodies. He must have savored this triumph over his early critics. The copies from Cranach, Courbet, Delacroix, El Greco, Poussin and Velazquez of the last half of Picasso's production are totally obvious compared with works he did after 1901 and before the "Guernica" mural of 1937. He craved success and achieved that goal rapidly by his raids on art history. With the concealed help of the masters he conquered the Parisian art scene, outdid his rival Matisse and became the most famous and wealthy artist of this century.

Edouard Manet, the first artist working in the modernist manner in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, had painted his versions of the work of Titian and Raphael. Following Manet's example, Picasso deliberately chose to make art history his reference. Like Manet before him, he worked from the compositions of the masters, thereby freeing himself from the bondage of creating from a perceived reality. At the same time he gained from the masterful formal structures which were concealed in the abstract. In other words, he avoided merely copying the appearance of the things he saw about him. His method was to look at the art of the past until he found something he wished to dissect as Cubism had broken up and recombined the perception of subject matter to present its new vision. Cubism had claimed for the artist a new reality. That reality was the process by which nature is transformed into art rather than the artist seeking the elusive illusion of representing perceived reality.

Penrose commented on this “During the years when Picasso was discovering cubism his faculties were fully occupied: he was completely dedicated to his new-found invention, and allowed himself no deviations. At the same time he was conscious of other modes of vision. His admiration for the work of great masters such as Ingres, and his careful study of their paintings in the Louvre during his early years in Paris, may at

first sight appear incongruous with his cubist discoveries. But even during the most hermetic period of cubism he shared with all great artists a desire to keep in touch with reality, and knew that there has been more than one way of doing so” (Penrose 191).

One of the ways Picasso did this was by searching through the art of the masters to find examples relating to his current formal and thematic interests. He said "When I paint my object is to show what I have found and not what I am looking for" (Picasso qtd. Barr 270).

He would paraphrase or combine, seeming to delight in findingassociations within numerous works which he could reconstitute, freely mixing the work of different periods of art history. He rejected non-objective art, choosing to have his work refer to his experience of the he technology of the twentieth century assisted him in his travels through art history. He had at his command reproductions, photographs, projection slides to supplement original art and artifacts.

Parmelin description in describing Picasso's studio in the 1960'smentioned "Stacks of projectors and easels..." (Parmelin 87).

Stacks of slide projectors suggest a practice of projecting numerous images and that Picasso's comparison and evaluation of his work with the art of the masters was enhanced by his study of projected slides of their work. Parmelin gave this amazing account of projection in the winter of 1963-64 “At Mougins, winter out of doors has its famous sun, but the nights in the studio are more magnificent still, warm, intimate, and deep.

I have a memory, extraordinarily violent and almost magical in its clarity, of an evening that winter at Notre-Dame de Vie, before Christmas. At the end of the room Picasso generally uses when he is not working, there is a studio which he had built on a terrace. The wall facing the vast countryside (with its motorway at the foot of the hill and its sea studded with the shining triangles of warships) is glass for half its height. The whole of the night lives in this window with its strings of lights, its sparks flashing from earth and sky, the one alive with the red and white meteor-streaks of cars, and the other fixed and motionless, with no shooting stars. These vastnesses of the night, so

precious to the eye, so inviting to the dreams of the man behind the glass, are both outside and inside at the same time.

Around us was the fairly calm disorder of the studio, for at that time Picasso was only just beginning to use it.

The farthest wall was uncluttered, vast and white. This wall had a part to play.

It all began late in the evening when Picasso came out of his studio at the far end and walked towards us. The lights went out. Jacqueline raised a finger, and a jet of light sprang forth. And suddenly there appeared, enormous, ten times larger than the real canvas and covering the whole wall, in colours, a bare-legged warrior, his foot planted on a child, beside a kneeling woman, clinging to him, her head thrown back, screaming; it was Poussin's "Massacre of the Innocents."

All around, right to the farthest corners of the wall, the massacre went on. There was no house left, no studio, nobody. Only those huge people radiating colour and light, alone in the night, on a level with the house, and with an extraordinary life of their own.

But the dark landscape clung to the glass, making it into a mirror. Another "Massacre of the Innocents" appeared before our eyes, right opposite the first.

"It's almost better than the other" said Picasso, "because it's less sharp, and the colours are truer."

"Floating as it did outside the wall, in the air, covering, by the usual optical illusion, the whole sky. with its stars which took their place in the canvas, with the whole of the hill of Mougins, and a few eyes that were headlights gliding among the soldiers as they raised their sabres, the "Massacre of the Innocents" on the glass wall ,had a feeling of singular immensity.

In the studio where we sat invisible, where all was dark, thoughts of all kinds grew in profusion, and from time to time the miracle of the projector and the size of that wall has transformed that studio into an enchanted art gallery where all the galleries in the world showed us the many-times-magnified essence of their masterpieces. "La ronde de nuit" here appears life-size. A head by Rembrandt, ten feet high, can be contemplated for hours, whether true or false, with all sorts of details suddenly becoming clear as

through a microscope. The head of Van Gogh's self-portrait stretches from floor to ceiling. And even though it is the Van Gogh pictures which suffer most from reproduction, Picasso says that all the same, on the wall as everywhere else, it is he who is the greatest of all” (Parmelin 49).

Slide projection gave Picasso the opportunity of using more than one projector at a time with multiple images. He could have used these multiple projections to compare his work with that of others; to notice relationships between the works and even to selectively enlarge sections, alter perception by projecting the slides out of focus, reversing the slides, even overlapping two or more slides in the same space frame. It is not inconceivable to imagine Picasso working with the aid of projected slides in this manner. Indeed, it would be very natural for him. He had the many projectors, slides, the great white wall, the darkness of the night when he preferred to work, and the need throughout his career, as we have seen, to combine and alter images.

Another way Picasso used photography was to work from photographs that he he took or to make copies of photographs and picture- postcards that he obtained. Penrose reported “A postcard of a young couple in Tyrolian national costume was transformed into a large and splendid pencil drawing which is no slavish copy, but rather a noble and inspired study, drawn with such vitality and freshness that the original photo would look a travesty of reality beside it. There is similarly a well-known drawing of Diaghilev and Selisbourg taken from a photograph for which they had dressed themselves with the greatest care. In this case the photograph still exists. In comparison with the direct simplicity of the drawing, in which all superfluous detail is eliminated and only a pure unhesitating line remains to describe their features, the photograph is a poor, insufficient likeness of the two men. Just as Picasso had delighted in showing even as a child that he could rival the masters, here it gave him great satisfaction to show that he could beat the camera” (Penrose 217).

Blunt commented on Picasso's uniqueness “Basically, however, Picasso is an eclectic in the best and most traditional sense of the word. Like all the great artists of the past - though with an avidity perhaps rare with them - he has studied every form of art which came before his eyes and, with modern museums and art galleries, and twentieth-century methods of photography and book production, the quantity and variety of art accessible to him are of a quite different order from what would have been known to an

artist in, say, the sixteenth century, who would have known the painting of his native city, who could have known a small number of works of art through copies or engravings. With the "Musee Imaginaire" of today Picasso has, almost all his life, been able to see every form of art known to man; but, if he has been presented with this huge variety, he has always chosen what he needed with the most exact instinct and judgment, finding precisely the material that he needed for what he was doing at that particular moment and invariably moulding it to his own purposes. He has always realized that it is only with an artist of feeble imagination that eclecticism is a danger; a great artist can absorb and be nourished by what he takes from others and uses to his own ends” (Blunt 6).

Picasso offered an explanation for his combining images from traditional art “When I paint, I always try to give an image people are not expecting and beyond that, one they reject. That's what interests me. It's in this sense that I mean I always try to be subversive. That is, I give a man an image of himself whose elements are collected from among the usual way of seeing things in traditional painting and then reassembled in a fashion that is unexpected and disturbing enough to make it impossible for him toescape the questions it raises” (Picasso qtd. in Gilot 66).

A failure to recognize the scope of Picasso's dependence on the practice of transforming the work of others has generated a myth about his creative powers which would have us to believe that his inventions were totally original, unprecedented and inexplicable. Gertrude Stein even promoted the idea that Picasso had no help in his revolution in art but later she contradicted her statement “Picasso was the only one in painting who saw the twentieth century with his eyes and saw its reality and consequently his struggle was terrifying, terrifying for himself and for others, because he had nothing to help him, the past did not help him, nor the present, he had to do it all alone...

Later she modified her statement by saying:

...he returned and became acquainted with Matisse through whom he came to know African sculpture” (Stein 22) .

As her statement demonstrates, Picasso was often presented as the solitary genius creating an unprecedented art for the twentieth century. This was just

not the case. Picasso not only had the assistance of past art but he would also borrow from his contemporaries as recalled by Penrose “It has often been said, not without malice, that Picasso steals anything from anyone if it intrigues him sufficiently. There are those who claim that during his close collaboration with Braque he would hurry home after a visit to his friend's studio to exploit ideas suggested by the work he had just seen. These rumors spread to such a degree, says Cocteau (who is himself not adverse from the habit of borrowing, especially from Picasso), that minor cubist painters would hide their latest pet inventions when he paid them a visit from fear that he would carry off some trivial idea on which they had staked their hopes of fame. It is not the theft however that is important - the world of ideas should have no frontiers - it is what is made of it afterwards. A worse practice which can lead to complete sterility is indicated by Picasso when he says: "To copy others is necessary but to copy oneself is pathetic" (Picasso qtd. in Penrose 191).

Furthermore, Picasso was compelled to make art but lacking subjects (either through his choice of living in isolation or the practice of not working from the model which naturally developed when Picasso and Braque were creating their cubist works at the beginning of the twentieth century) he chose to combine subjects gleaned from others' art or took his subject matter from works he had previously painted. Picasso, having exiled himself, was close to letting painting become a mere exercise or game in his isolation. John Berger commented on this particular problem “The horror of it all is that it is a life without reality. Picasso is only happy when working. Yet he has nothing of his own to work on. He takes up the themes of other painter's pictures. He decorates pots and plates that other men make for him. He is reduced to playing like a child. He becomes again the child prodigy” (Berger 180).

Parmelin related that in 1964, Spitzer, a Berlin publisher, sent Picasso a package of reproductions of one of Picasso's own paintings of an artist. Picasso proceeded to make variations of it. Picasso said “I could do thousands of them. It's marvelou to work like this from a painter who's already there. Basically the most terrible thing of all for a painter is a blank canvas” (Picasso qtd. in Parmelin 97).

Also, throughout Picasso's production there occured a transformation of

persons and objects, a metamorphosis, as if by magic into something else, often disturbing or unexpected. In discussing one of his paintings Picasso said that he was interested in making it more disturbing. This is connected to his fascination with the magic of metamorphosis or the changes of form, shape, structure or substance. It would have been quite natural for him to effect this transformation by adapting the works of the masters overlaying his images upon the formal elements of their compositions. In essence, taking one thing and turning it into another or finding the suggestion of an image hidden in masterpieces like the childhood game of finding faces suggested in the forms of clouds. An early example from 1903 is a landscape drawing done in Barcelona “Nude Lying with Figures” (164) in which Picasso creates imaginary faces and figures in the trees and clouds and a nude in the foreground landforms. This approach recalls Leonardo da Vinci's searching the cracks and patterns of his walls looking for imaginary subjects to inspire him. Concerning metamorphosis and its relation to his famous saddle and bicycle handlebars which Picasso joined to make a bull's head Picasso said “One day I take the saddle and the handle bars, I put them one on top of the other, and I make a bull's head. All well and good. But what I should have done straight after was to throw away the bull's head. Throw it into the gutter, anywhere, but throw it away. Then a workman comes along. He picks it up. He thinks that with this bull's head he could perhaps make a saddle and a set of bicycle handlebars and he does it...that would have been magnificent. It is the gift of metamorphosis” (Picasso qtd. in Parmelin 76-77) .

(164)

Brassai quoted Picasso as saying in 1943 “It seems strange to me that we ever arrived at the idea of making statues from marble. I understand how you can see something in the root of a tree, a crevice in a wall, a corroded bit of stone, or a pebble...But marble? It stands there like a block, suggesting no form or image. It doesn't inspire. How could Michelangelo have seen his "David" in a block of marble? If it occurred to man to create his own images, it's because he discovered them all around him, almost formed, already within his grasp. He saw them in a bone, in the irregular surfaces of cavern walls, in a piece of wood... One form might suggest a woman, another a bison, and still another the head of a demon” (Picasso qtd. in Brassai 66-67).

This transformation was consistent with the 20th century Surrealistmovement in art. John Golding summarized this “Breton pinpointed what was perhaps most fundamental to Surrealist visual techniques when he wrote, quite simply, that Surrealism had suppressed the world "like" a tomato is no longer "like" a child's balloon. It has never been sufficiently stressed that the question of the interchangeability of images had been posed, within the context of twentieth century art, by Synthetic Cubism, and most markedly by that of Picasso“ (Breton qtd. in Golding 114).

Picasso's friend Sabartes gave the example of Picasso receiving an oval cherimoya fruit from Spain which reminded Picasso of an owl “Observing the fruit before him, Picasso sees the exact position of the eyes and the bill; as he observes the fruit from the side, the image which comes to his mind is confirmed. With his finger he follows the curve of the fruit, which then suggests: "The little feet here and the bill here." So strong is his conviction that he effortlessly remarks to whoever is with him: "Even the feathers, you see?" And indeed, even the feathers; it is enough that he sees them for us to see them. If the cherimoya brought him memories of his native land only in passing, the impression produced by it stirred up in him different ideas. His brain apparently received the poetic emotion which, in the service of his own feelings, produced a version of the bird much more telling than truth itself. For his artificial owl is the product of an imagination "in the state of grace" (Sabartes 24).

Sabartes gave another example “Picasso, who saw me constantly, knew that I was not the same without a cigar between my teeth. (In Paris during World War II tobacco was scarce.) This was enough to cause him to envision the image of a cigar in a piece of wood. A few strokes of oil paint performed the "miracle" of suggesting the cigar I lacked. Had not the imagination of Picasso intervened, the little stick would have been

thrown forever in the fire or on the trash heap. Something memorable had been created” (Sabartes 24).

Gilot asked Picasso why he troubled himself to incorporate bits and pieces of junk into his sculptures instead of starting from scratch using whatever material he chose to build up his forms. Picasso responded “There's a good reason for doing it this way," he told me. "The material itself, the form and texture of those pieces, often gives me the key to the whole sculpture. The shovel in which I saw the vision of the tail- feathers of the crane e the idea of doing a crane. Aside from that it's not that I need that ready-made element, but I achieve reality through the use of metaphor. My sculptures are plastic metaphors. It's the same principle as in painting. I've said that a painting shouldn't be a trompe-l'oeil but a trompe-l'esprit. I'm out to fool the mind rather than the eye. And that goes for sculpture too” (Picasso qtd. in Gilot 296).

Again Sabartes told the story of Picasso constructing a human form in outline from some fragments of straw, explaining that first Picasso had to discover it, to foresee how it could be used and be capable of receiving inspiration to create. (Sabartes 24).

Lhote described how Picasso used his memory of forms in creating “But this craftsman's flights of fancy do not have their origin solely in the unconscious, as his usual interpreters - who are sometimes of astounding credulity - would have us believe. His mind is a prodigious reservoir of already invented forms, an encyclopedia kept carefully up to date, and it feeds his inexhaustible invention with reminiscences of the most famous historical creations, from the Altamira caves to the studio of Arcimboldo” (Lhote 213).

All of these examples demonstrate that Picasso did not feel comfortable working only from his imagination. He was most at ease working with images suggested to him which he could alter through the magic of metamorphosis. He could find his subjects anywhere. According to Francoise Gilot, Picasso often said "When there's anything to steal, I steal" (Picasso qtd. in Gilot 292).

Furthermore, the first issue of "Minotaure" was also illustrated with a series of Picasso drawings inspired by the central panel of Grunewald's Isenheim

Altarpiece representing the Crucifixion. Picasso had already treated this theme in a painting of 1930 and reverted to it in 1932. Picasso said to his friend Brassai, the photographer “I love that painting, and I tried to interpret it. But as soon as I began to draw it became something else entirely.” Brassi commented “I mention this series for a specific purpose, since it was the first time, to my knowledge, that a great painting had touched off the creative spark in him and he had concentrated his energies on a masterpiece, in order to extort its secret” (Brassai qtd. in Leymarie 246).

Like Picasso's friend Brassai, persons commenting on Picasso's work have not fully realized the extent of his relationship with art history. All report the obvious influences of his formative years. Some mention his reworking of Le Nain's "The Peasants' Repast" in 1917-18 as an early example. Others refer to the obvious named paraphrasing of the work of Manet, Courbet, Poussin and El Greco of the late 1940's and 1950's. Some state that after 1961 Picasso rarely stretched out to the work of other artists. However, describing a work in progress during the early 1960's Picasso said “That's not Delacroix at all. It's wavering between Poussin and David. But it hasn't any connection. Perhaps it's the Sabine women...” (Picasso qtd. in Parmelin 52).

He then asked for reproductions of Poussin and of the Sabine women to be sent to him.

The works presented in this series demonstrate that Picasso continually depended on the masters. From his "formative years" right up to the last works of his career this was his method. This relationship was more than mere copying. It played a significant role in the development of twentieth century art. Picasso's reputation as the great revolutionary of art creating new styles as a solitary genius must be re-evaluated. He did not do it alone. He had the entire tradition of art history to assist him and his work is a continuation and reflection of all the cultures that preceded him.

Works cited.

Barr, Alfred H. Picasso: 50 Years of His Art. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1946 219. Print.

Barr, Alfred H, Masters of Modern Art, quoted by Sam Hunter in Modern French Painting New York, Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1956 151. Print.

Hilton, Timothy Picasso, New York: Praeger, 1975 252. Print.


Hunter, Sam Modern French Painting New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc. 1956 151-152. Print.

Hilton, Timothy Picasso, New York: Praeger, 1975 254.

Penrose, Sir Roland. Picasso: His Life and Work, 2nd ed. New York: Schocken, 1962 343. Print.



Duncan, David Douglas Picasso's Picassos New York: Harper, 1961 521. Print.Berger, John Success and Failure of Picasso New York: Pantheon 1989 185. Print.




Gilot, Francoise written by Lake, Carleton Life with Picasso London: Virago Press 1990 192. Print.

Gilot, Francoise written by Lake, Carleton Life with Picasso London: Virago Press 1990 43. Print.

PICASSO CHAP VIII END

Documents