The sign on the façade of the Cleveland Museum of Art tells me all I need to know. It reads:
Picasso and Paper
Inside, that’s what I saw — the work of artist Pablo Picasso on paper. It was worth my time, too.
For no artist in history left more of himself on paper — or in ceramics and in sculptures — than Picasso did, and that fact became clearer than Baccarat crystal as I strolled the exhibition of over 300 pieces of his work in the basement gallery of the museum.
In these 300 pieces, cobbled together from museums in Paris, Columbus, Hartford and elsewhere, was artwork from a variety of periods. They displayed the deep respect he had for the craft.
To see what Picasso produced was a feast for an art lover’s eyes. His artwork spanned a spectrum that changed with the times. Picasso had his Rose Period (The Harem); he had his Blue Period (La Vie); he had his Cubism Period (Man with a Guitar).
Of course, he produced Neoclassical work, his inspiration coming from the great Italian and Greek masters.
From the exhibit, I found one thing extraordinarily striking about Picasso: his evolution. He might have been the first classically schooled artist to discover beauty in the African diaspora, which he explored in-depth with his work from 1906-1909.
I do wonder aloud what greater influence might Picasso have had on art had he stayed longer in his African period. Would he have led more of his contemporaries to delve into African influences? Might he have influenced Black artists like Augusta Savage, Alma Thomas or Norman Lewis more?
Classicism has its place in the art universe, but artists like Picasso could never stay in one space throughout their careers, could they? Imagine, if you would, Vincent van Gogh using his artistic vision to paint Harlequins, acrobats and dancers? Did he or, say, Monet or Cezanne swing so wildly in art they created?
Not even Salvador Dali, a contemporary of Picasso’s, can claim to have achieved the broad themes of his Spanish compatriot.
No matter, because I didn’t go to Picasso and Paper to see Picasso’s work compared to Dali’s or anybody else’s.
In his later years, Picasso played off the works of Edouard Manet and Eugene Delacroix, and he did so without lessening his reputation. Instead, he added to it.
I suspect art critics find him a difficult master to judge. They have so much to judge in him, and nobody can like all of what he did. I would venture to say his African Period didn’t play well with everybody, which is why, I suspect, he moved beyond the aughts.
Moved might be the wrong word. Evolved might be the more apt one, because Picasso evolved unlike no other artist whose work held broad appeal.
I wish I could sit down at a table, beer in hand, and talk to Picasso. I would relish his thoughts on what he was trying to achieve with his art, and, even more so, I would love to hear his opinion on the exhibition at the art museum.
Call such thoughts my musing about the impossible. I’m plead guilty. Picasso, who died in April 1973, can’t talk about his work himself, so those who bother to see it will have to put their own judgments to it.
I liked what I saw. So will most people who see Picasso and Paper. It will be time spent well.
