<< Back to all Picasso transcriptions
After he died, there was an exhibition of some of Picasso's recent works that got a lot of attention from tourists and curiosity seekers, but not from the art world.
His drawings and etchings got some faint praise, but his paintings of cavaliers, musketeers, lovers, and painters were either denounced or ignored. Late Picasso paintings were seen as an embarrassment: the blot of an old man on an otherwise illustrious career.
Poorly represented in exhibitions, they were commercially unsuccessful (you could buy a late Picasso for a few thousand pounds all the way through to the early 1980s).
Then, with the end of Modernism and the influence of Neo-Expressionism and the return to painting, people started seeing Picasso's late work as being just as good as the rest of his work.
The 1988 'Late Picasso' show at the Tate helped make these works seem valuable and expensive again, in line with their great tradition.
The Tate makes a great play of the relationship that Picasso felt towards the work of the old masters and the rarified phases of their late work.
Late works of European artists, writers and composers are generally seen as offering the special insight of a lifetime's experience and offering a vision that strips away artifice, and unnecessary decoration and tells a story that goes straight to the heart of important matters, such as no less than, the meaning of life itself. This is done through a raw, essential expression of emotions, feelings and ideas about living.
In this way, late Titian and late Beethoven produced works like 'The Death of Actaeon' and the Late Quartets
Picasso sought to emulate that or to make work that was equal to that in scope and stature.
Here is his 'Pissing woman'.
Here is how Picasso's painting 'Pissing woman' is described in the Tate catalogue:
Drawn just three years before his death, Femme nue à sa toilette (aka 'Pissing woman') stands testament to Picasso's enduring skill as a draughtsman and illustrates the most timeless of subjects: 'Picasso was indeed the painter of women, ancient goddess, alma mater, man eater, swollen balloon, weeping woman, hysterical female, her body coiled like an egg or abandoned to sleep, a pile of exposed flesh, woman happily pissing, fertile mother, or courtesan. No painter has gone this far in unveiling the female universe' (B. Léal, C. Piot & M.-L. Bernadac, op. cit., p. 444).
Firstly, what do you make of the catalogue quote above?
Is it balanced? Inflated? Does it stray away from art history and move into something else - something to do with outdated views of the relationship between men and women?
Is it more properly, simply ridiculous to an audience today? Would you describe it as sexist even?
Does the writer endorse the objectification of women? Is Picasso part of that process?
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, only your answers.
Picasso famously liked women - or almost as famously, dominated and coercively controlled women.
In the past, many art historians have looked at Picasso's art in terms of the wives and girlfriends that were important to him so that rather than talk about his periods: blue, rose, Iberian, analytical cubist, synthetic cubist neo-classical etc, they have described his phases as dominated by:
Fernande Olivier (née Amelie Lang)
Olga Khoklova
Marie-Thérèse Walter
Dora Maar (Henriette Theodora Markovitch)
Françoise Gilot
Jacqueline Roque
Picasso's behaviour towards women in general and in person was often cruel and would today be seen as abusive. For example, he enjoyed seeing Marie-Thérèse Walter and Dora Maar physically fight one another for his attentions.
Picasso always enjoyed the attention of women who were younger than him - today, would we ask if any of them were too young for him?
Rembrandt’s painting, unique for him in its tender intimacy, shows a young woman almost up to her knees in a stream. She lifts her shift and looks down with a little smile of pleasure at the cool water rippling against her sturdy legs.
Although it’s not certain, this woman may be Hendrickje Stoffels, who came into Rembrandt’s household to look after his infant son after his first wife, Saskia, died. Hendrickje and Rembrandt became lovers but were unable to marry. In the year this picture was painted, Hendrickje endured public humiliation because she was pregnant outside of marriage. Perhaps the painting was a homage to her strength and loyalty.
It has been suggested that the picture is a study for a biblical heroine in a much larger picture, but the plain shift the woman wears is enough to raise a doubt: such a heroine would have been richly dressed or nude. The most likely possibility is that Rembrandt knew and loved this quiet, gently absorbed woman and shared her delight in an unguarded moment of pleasure in some anonymous Dutch stream.
This painting is so immediate, so tenderly intimate, that we sense the young woman he depicted was precious to the ageing Rembrandt. But he doesn‘t make it easy for us to understand why. We don’t know who she is, where she is and whether the image is posed or something remembered.
Mellow light bathes her high forehead and her neck and breast, giving her flesh a soft bloom. Her face is plump and wholesome; her thick auburn hair is caught back but threatens to tumble about her shoulders – a stray ringlet and a tiny earring tickle her cheek. But her sturdy legs and slightly puffed knees, perfectly reflected in the stream, speak of demanding physical work and someone unused to leisure. She looks down with a little smile at the sensation of the water. Tiny ripples bubble against her skin as she wades forward, feeling her way carefully with a foot, lifting her shift in case it should get wet.
This shift is quickly painted in thick strokes in many different tones of white, suggesting a coarse fabric such as cambric. Baggy and shapeless, sleeves carelessly rolled back, the low neck slips off the woman’s shoulder, almost revealing her breasts. This isn‘t the garment of a wealthy client perhaps wanting an unconventional portrait, yet behind the woman is a heap of heavy red and gold brocade of some value. Does this belong to her? Is it simply a prop left behind after one of the dressing up sessions for a history painting that Rembrandt was making?
Some have suggested that this is a sketch or a study for a painting of a mythological or biblical heroine (Rembrandt painted several of these, but such characters are usually richly dressed or shown nude). The most likely is Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, a general in the army of King David. David saw Bathsheba bathing and desired her. Wanting to marry her himself, David sent her husband into the thick of battle to ensure his death. Sometimes Bathsheba is shown in paintings as a temptress, in others as David’s victim, with no choice but to succumb to him because of his status. Rembrandt chose the second version for his great painting of Bathsheba that is now in the Louvre, Paris.
What has this to do with the young woman in this picture, seemingly so unaware of her own allure? It has been suggested that this is a preparatory study for Rembrandt’s painting of Bathsheba. Both were painted in the same year, 1654, and both portray a woman in or near water with rich, heavy fabric nearby – Bathsheba sits, the woman here stands. The settings are equally imprecise, dark shadowy places quickly painted and left simply as a background to the figure of the woman. But is it the same woman?
Like the image of the unknown woman, Rembrandt’s Bathsheba seems very real, not an imaginary ideal. Although entirely nude, she is physically similar: wide hipped with a rounded stomach and small breasts. The women share the same auburn hair, though Bathsheba’s is more artfully arranged and a ribbon brushes her bare shoulder. The faces bear similarities – the high, round foreheads and the noses are alike, although in both cases their lowered eyes can’t be seen.
But it appears that whoever she is, the woman in the stream isn't likely to be posing as a historic heroine. It does seem likely that she posed for Bathsheba but at some other time, and that this is not a study for the Louvre painting. The plain cambric shift is enough to raise a doubt. The most likely possibility is that Rembrandt knew and loved this quiet, gently absorbed woman and shared her delight in an unguarded moment of pleasure in some anonymous Dutch stream.
Hendrickje Stoffels came into Rembrandt’s household to look after his infant son after his first wife, Saskia, died. She is thought to have posed for several of his paintings including a portrait, but there is no evidence to confirm this. Although Hendrickje and Rembrandt became lovers, they were unable to marry because, by the terms of Saskia’s will, he would have lost a considerable amount of income if he did so. In the year that this picture was painted, Hendrickje was 28 years old. She had been subjected to public humiliation and was denied the Eucharist because she had become pregnant outside marriage with their first child, Cordelia. Perhaps the painting was a homage to her strength, endurance and loyalty.
Whoever this woman is, Rembrandt’s revolutionary technique – leaving the warm buff colour of the ground uncovered in places to create shadows, stroking wet paint into wet rough ridges to create texture – enabled him to do what he did best: portray a deep understanding of human emotions. In this picture, it’s not only the woman’s emotions that we sense, but also, it seems, Rembrandt’s own.
Is this writing different in tone and intention to the passage quoted above describing the Picasso painting?
Does it have more seriousness as a description of the possibilities of the painting and its meanings?
Does it present a different view of women as possible identities within the painting?
What do you think of Picasso's response to the Rembrandt painting?
Do you think it is a direct response?
Is it irreverent and daring, a kind of 'in yer face' pastiche or riff on the earlier painting?
Is it a lightweight treatment of something that a late work can show as in the Rembrandt painting where there is a capacity in the work to talk about human relationships, moods and emotions that we can recognise and with which we can sympathise?
Which painting do you like better - you must say why if you have an answer and give some evidence to support your choice
<< Back to all Picasso transcriptions