"Every one was forced by the war which made them understand that things had changed to other things and that they had not stayed the same things, they were forced then to accept Picasso."
Great show at the MET. Super interesting. I thought the jokes with signatures and signing their work was pretty cool. What made Picasso's signature authentic, by the way?
Hi Stephen, thanks for responding! The Met show fascinated me. I had a clearer sense of how Cubism evolved. The signatures and calling cards they used in a collage style were intriguing, in part because of who the names were. I’m not sure what you are asking about the authenticity of Picasso’s signature. Do you mean his style?
I no longer can recall the details. But I believe it was a joke. I think there was a trompe l'oeil calling card with a handwritten "Picasso" on the card. Or maybe it was a real calling card, attached to the canvas. I'm not sure. But in either case, the handwritten calling card signature was not in Picasso's hand. Meanwhile, the painting was also signed.
So which signature made the painting "authentic?" The one that seemed more real was not.
He was playing with art critics and dealers... and us.
Thanks for your interesting observations of and responses to these particular paintings in a perhaps too vast exhibit. I think of Cubism as a useful, brief, segue for Picasso and others, and now might spend a little more time with it. P.S. In your third from last paragraph, I think you mean to cite WWI and WWII, but mention WW1 twice. Not fiction.
Great show at the MET. Super interesting. I thought the jokes with signatures and signing their work was pretty cool. What made Picasso's signature authentic, by the way?
Hi Stephen, thanks for responding! The Met show fascinated me. I had a clearer sense of how Cubism evolved. The signatures and calling cards they used in a collage style were intriguing, in part because of who the names were. I’m not sure what you are asking about the authenticity of Picasso’s signature. Do you mean his style?
I no longer can recall the details. But I believe it was a joke. I think there was a trompe l'oeil calling card with a handwritten "Picasso" on the card. Or maybe it was a real calling card, attached to the canvas. I'm not sure. But in either case, the handwritten calling card signature was not in Picasso's hand. Meanwhile, the painting was also signed.
So which signature made the painting "authentic?" The one that seemed more real was not.
He was playing with art critics and dealers... and us.
I think John Berger in "Ways of Seeing" had a lot of fun with this too. Which signature made the painting valuable and why?
Yes...I do think Picasso liked playing with others as well as with notions of authenticity. I’ll have to go back to Berger’s book!
Thanks for your interesting observations of and responses to these particular paintings in a perhaps too vast exhibit. I think of Cubism as a useful, brief, segue for Picasso and others, and now might spend a little more time with it. P.S. In your third from last paragraph, I think you mean to cite WWI and WWII, but mention WW1 twice. Not fiction.
Thank you, Francesca for reading and responding! Yes...I meant WWII the second time.