Talk:Pablo Picasso/Archive 2

Surname
Picasso was his mother's maiden name; his father's surname was Ruiz. Presumably Pablo's legal surname remained Ruiz, unless he changed it formally. We need to explain why he chose to use his mother's surname for his artistic works, when this happened, and what implications it had for the surnames of his children. JackofOz 03:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Picasso was his mother's maiden name" NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Picasso wasn't his mother's maiden name for a simple reason, Women don't have maiden name in spain because they don't lose their family with the marriage. In spain we have a name( or two) and two surnames, the first surname comes from the father, and the second one comes from the mother, and this naming system is equal for men and women. Picasso's parents were José Ruiz Blasco and María Picasso Lopez, then his name is Pablo Ruiz Picasso.


 * I think Mailer quotes him as once saying – jokingly – that all the great ones had double s’s. He writes about the name change in his biography but I no longer have my copy ... otherwise ... I could be more useful! ~nude grey~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.24.158 (talk) 08:44, October 13, 2006


 * I think that is a good question, but could it be that it is just usual for spanish people to take their mother's name, cause in some counties it is? soooo if anyone has more info please!! AniekM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.33.150 (talk) 15:30, October 22, 2006


 * So, for some reason people seem to think Picasso's full name is "Picasso was born as Pablito Diego Jose Santiago Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Crispin Crispiniano de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santisima Trinidad Ruiz Blasco y Picasso Lopez." I deleted this a week or so back, and someone added it back in.  It's completely unsourced and kind of ridiculous.  If anyone knows a source of this information, please add it or discuss it here in the discussion page.  Otherwise I'll delete it again.--Drewcifer3000 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about "Ruiz Blasco y Picasso Lopez", but he did receive that improbable list of forenames at his christening. I'll come up with a citation.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Picasso's name was indeed Pablo Ruiz Picasso. He's often cited like that. The reason he is known as Picasso is probably (though I'm only inferring this, I can't back it up) because Picasso is a much more resonant name than Ruiz, which is fairly common in Spain. The second comment in this section is right: in Spain we have two surnames: one comes from the father (usually the first one, although they can be swapped), the other from the mother. So Ruiz and Picasso were both legal surnames for him. In Spanish forms, it always says apellidos (surnames), not apellido (surname).--Juanmejgom 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not strictly true that Spaniards "have two surnames". I am not at all an expert, but I've known plenty of Latin's with "two surnames" and the father's name gets more prominence and is often the only one used, and a daughter passes on the father's name, not her mother's, so there is not the gender equality that one might assume from hearing about the practice without the accompanying detail.

Of course this is encyclopedically irrelevant, but the amusingly lengthy full name of this great artist recalls Monty Python's "Election Night Special."Yamahasixstring (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong: Don't confuse "Latins" (it's wrong to call them latins but I'll do it so everybody understand that We mean Latin Americans) with Spaniards, even it's wrong to consider all latinos as a group, there are a lot of countries, cultures, laws... in Latin American.


 * IT'S STRICTLY TRUE THAT SPANIARDS "HAVE TWO SURNAMES" (I'm a spaniard I know what I talking about). Children have the same naming system, there is not distinction between daughters and sons. We usually receive our first surname from our father's first surname, and our second one from our mother's first surname. This can be swapped (that's why I say usually), our first surname can be our mother's first surname, and our second surname can be our father's first surname, but a when a couple have their first children, the same order is obligatory for all their children.

Cultural depictions of Pablo Picasso
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Picasso's work
Please save these images by putting them in good use. These images can be included in the List of Picasso artworks articles under the fair use license. However, someone needs to match the original title of the artworks in the lists with the translated title used here.

Actually, that's not entirely true. In order for these pictures to be kept, there needs to be critical commentary/discussion about the artworks themselves, as per the Art fair use tag.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision proposed
This article contains very little description of Picasso's art. As a first step toward fixing this I propose a reorganization: the "Career" section, perhaps renamed "Biography", will lead, and the life story will be followed by a section ("Works") with fuller description of his work, followed by the links to decade-by-decade lists. Among other things, this should make the article easier for future contributors to expand--right now, it's difficult to plug information about his work into the text without disrupting the flow. Are there any objections or suggestions? Ewulp 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me second this, and give a hint as to the direction it might take, too. I came to this page looking for at least a hint as to why Picasso is so important to the art world. I don't find the few photos of his works to be particularly compelling, and the text doesn't give much of a hint. It mentions he (co-)invented cubism, but so what? As an incorrigible art philistine, my reaction is, "BFD... My nephew did something about like Le guitariste when he was eight." 69.140.81.177 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; There desperately needs to be a "criticism" section. Surely I cannot be the only one who thinks Picasso was overrated. 71.229.233.140 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

English Translations of Work
I think it would be a great idea to have the English translations of his work side-by-side with the original names. Thanks!--Knulclunk 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Picasso: Just a Painter and Sculptor?
I think Picasso should be described as an 'Artist', rather than 'painter and sculptor', because his creative scope seemed very wide, and he practiced pottery, printmaking and designing, even did stage designing for his friends (Jean Cocteau, for example), which are held highly in the histories of the respective fields. It wasn't just like Bob Dylan doing a painting exhibition, you see. He actually has a place in the history of stage design with his cubistic division of space bringing an entirely different language into it. All this just to request a revision of the intro. Thanks...--Objecthood 07:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Picasso's Full Name...
I think there's been some confusion over Picasso's full name...it's, as far as I knew, not "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Crispín Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso" but "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cripiniano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso" - that is, instead of '...Crispin Crispiano...', it should be '...Cipriano...' Please cross-check and verify before finalizing. Thanks.--59.93.240.131 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The confusion is due to the fact that his name on his birth certificate and on his baptismal certificate are different. Jvbishop 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What about "Pablo Diego Jose Santiago Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Crispin Crispiniano Maria de los Garnimano Remedios Cipriano de la Santisima Trinidad Martyr Clito Ruiz Blasco y Picasso a Lasso Lopez"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.84.22.156 (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving article status/Peer Review
This article appears to be at or near Good article status. Does anyone know if this article has recently (or ever) been through a Peer review process, with an eye towards making it a Good article or a Featured article?

Would any of the editors contributing to this article be interested in assisting in the Peer review, and nomination for Good article process? Espana Viva 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! Good idea but not yet--I think peer review would be premature. The article has some serious deficiencies which should be corrected first: there are almost no inline citations and it says very little about his art. Ewulp 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected
Is it possible we can make this article Semi-Protected? It seems to be the subject of quite a lot of Vandalism (especially recently). Sarm 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a previous discussion about vandalism that was moved to the archive. It was already semi-protected between the beginning of November 2006 and the middle of February 2007.  Since that time it has been vandalized a couple of hundred times.  I don't think it should have been taken off the list, but admins are reluctant to keep an article semi-protected for an extended period of time.  Within hours of being unprotected it was vandalized dozens of times.  Feel free to take it up at Requests for page protection if you would like, I'm certainly behind you.  Cacophony 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python appearance?
At the bottom of the article it says that Picasso was on Monty Python's Flying Circus once. I know there are mentionings of Picasso in the muses of Monty Python, but he didn't actually appear on an episode did he? There are no sources supporting this and I haven't seen all of the Monty Python episodes, so this is why I am asking. --81.157.138.199 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy Ancestry
This reliable source states Picasso as having Gypsy ancestry, you cant argue with a reliable source http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-229005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.154.33 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

This is a sufficient source

pacifism?
unless sufficient sources can be found that have picasso self-identify as a pacifist, i think it's hardly an appropriate term to use. just because one doesn't fight in national wars doesn't make one a pacifist - somebody who is morally against the use of violence for any reason.--74.97.142.249 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern Lovers song
Although this info is accurate, starting an edit war is not the way to proceed. Discuss such information on the talk page first. Freshacconci 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While this might actually be a song that actually mentions Picasso, it doesn't belong in a discussion about his art, and his life. Modernist 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the Paul McCartney song is mentioned in the article under "legacy", as I see it we need to keep a bit of control over the number of items that are in tribute to, in honour of, or are satirical of Picasso. The Modern Lovers song is an early tribute/satire, but I'm afraid of what it might lead to. The McCartney reference is one artist of international stature speaking of another artist of international stature. I love Jonathan Richman but he's not really in the same league. After that, do we mention John Cale's version of the the Modern Lovers' "Pablo Picasso"? I'm sure there's more out there. Then there's the poems and books and in-the-style-of paintings and so on. Freshacconci 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a valid cross-reference to other information recognized by Wikipedia. It does not degrade Wikipedia or the article, given its placement in the "Trivia" section of the article.

You either permit some pop cultural references to Picasso or none at all. It isn't right to use culture snobbery to draw the line.
 * Hmmm. Yes. Maybe the article should not have a trivia section. Get it all out of there. Good idea. Modernist 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added trivia tag Modernist 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Modern Lovers (a highly influential band, by the way) song cannot be cross-referenced because it is pop culture and somehow allegedly degrades the article, I think all references to pop culture should be removed, even those masquerading as "Legacy." A film about Picasso is equivalent to a song or book about him. If including references to tribute/homage songs by bands that did not enjoy commercial success is improper, then references to relatively unknown films should be out of bounds as well. Anything else exhibits editorial bias.

The prices of his paintings at auction should be renamed "Trivia." That is not his legacy.

The Legacy section should discuss his influence on other artists.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Char boy (talk • contribs).


 * To whom it may concern - SIGN YOUR EDITS please, using 4 tilde's in a row. ty Modernist 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Modern Lovers song is on Picasso (disambiguation) along with various other Picasso-related material. Tyrenius 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Last words
The current ref digital-karma.org seems to have material submitted by users, so not quite up to par. I lent the book I need, though I vaguely recall it's not 100% certain what his last words were. On a quick search, the Daily Telegraph may be more acceptable. It gives "Drink to me." Tyrenius 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source does not support the full quotation attributed or circumstances of its utterance and thus doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia policy/guideline. Nor does it explain whether it was actually uttered in English or is a translation from Spanish or French.  Perhaps your book will yield a better citation.  Agreed that that site is user-submitted and a dubious source at best.  Tag was not bad faith: this quotation needs a valid citation. Char boy 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree and you raise valid and interesting points. Accurate referencing from reliable sources is important. Tyrenius 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The midwife story
I have removed these lines: "He was believed to be a stillborn baby. However his uncle, Salvador Quiz Blasco a well known doctor, revived the baby by blowing cigar smoke into lifeless Pablo's lungs ."

The cited source, Penrose (1981), only partly supports this. He writes: "The birth had been made all the more dramatic by a misjudgement, nearly fatal, on the part of the midwife. the child appeared to her to be stillborn and she abandoned it on the table, so as to give all her attention to the mother. It was due only to the fortunate presence of mind of Don Salvador, one of his uncles and a qualified doctor, that the infant was saved from asphyxia before life had begun. This story, often told to him during childhood, of how death was so forcefully present at birth, lurked in Picasso's imagination throughout life." ( p.10) That's all; it's close but no cigar (ouch).

While Stassinopoulos-Huffington (1988, p.15) relates the episode, including the cigar smoke, with no caveats, other biographers have expressed some reservations. Richardson (1991, vol 1, p. 25) tells it this way:"In later years Picasso gave precise but conflicting information as to the hour of his birth: 'half past nine P.M.,' he wrote on the flyleaf of Geiser's copy of his catalogue of Picasso's engraved work; 'midnight' is what he told others. According to his birth certificate, the artist was born at 11:15 P.M. It was a difficult birth, and the baby showed so little sign of life that the midwife concluded he was stillborn, and left him lying on a table while she attended the mother. He would have died, Picasso said, if his uncle Salvador had not been present. 'Doctors ... used to smoke big cigars and my uncle was no exception. When he saw me lying there he blew smoke into my face .... I immediately reacted with a grimace and a bellow of fury.' 'This story so often told in childhood,' Penrose has written, 'of how death was so forcefully present at birth lurked in Picasso's imagination throughout his life.'"

Richardson keeps this anecdote in perspective by noting that it was a story Picasso told, based upon family lore, and by demonstrating that Picasso was an unreliable witness as to the details of his birth. Mailer's Picasso bio (1995, p. 3) repeats the story in full but follows it with a disclaimer: "Since such family accounts are open to exaggeration, Don Salvador may not actually have shocked the newborn into life. All the same, the story is agreeable." Olivier W. Picasso, in Picasso: The Real Family Story (2004), does not mention anything of the midwife/Don salvador drama, nor does Daix (1993).

For the purposes of this article, this tale has little value except perhaps to illustrate the kind of stories Picasso told about himself, or the stories his family told him. We don't ordinarily expect an encyclopedia biography to specify that the subject was delivered by Caesarean section, was a quiet baby or cried a lot, etc. Ewulp 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) em portugues

Theft.
A Picasso was stolen on December 20th in São Paulo Museum of Art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.34.16 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Picasso-Man Who Lost Wednesday
The Man Who Lost Wednesday is a seminal piece by Picasso! Please do not take it down, as it is essential to understanding his oeuvre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futureman1199 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is entirely inappropriate. Kindly don't add it again. Tyrenius (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate how? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Tyrenius (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, inappropriate because it's not real. Gotcha. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Manual of Style (biographies) says the full name should be in the lead: it's been moved to the start of the main article. Also articles should have infoboxes. Tyrenius (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-added the infobox, it seems appropriate here...Modernist (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a really long full name, not particularly interesting to the reader of an introduction. I have to dispute the infobox; most of wikipedia's best writers dislike them in biographies because a) they simply repeat what is said in the lead; b) they oversimplify peoples' lives down to a few fields. I think that Picasso's infobox saying his "movement" is "Cubism" is a perfect example of that. Thanks, Modernist, for the comment in your edit comments. We need to encourage substantive additions to articles in general with this encyclopedia, not gnome over stuff like this. If I was a newbie and you hadn't said something like that—combined with this discussion about "recent edits"—my impression would be "well, I guess they don't want people to write anything here". I'm not a newbie, but it's still not clear to me. :) –Outriggr § 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about infoboxes for the most part. Please join this conversation at the visual arts project: about infoboxes. I felt the Picasso article is one in which as Tyrenius says there is a multilevel of information and the box is helpful. However like you - I write stuff and I think the occasions that I've edited in infoboxes are less then five (not counting vandalism). Your edits to the article were excellent. I wanted not to appear critical. Thanks, for your input. Modernist (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very pleased that Modernist has deemed your contributions "excellent". Everyone contributes what they can to the article. It's team work and gnoming has its place in that as well. If it doesn't interest you, leave it to others.

Regarding the name, Manual of Style (biographies) says, "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version." An example give is of François Mitterrand, namely: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand.

Regarding infoboxes, see the widespread use in Category:People infobox templates. I've not been that keen on them for a long time. Recently I tried some out, and it made sense to me. It means an article contains three levels of information:
 * 1) The main article has everything in depth.
 * 2) The lead is a summary.
 * 3) The infobox contains the key points.

Thus readers have a good choice, depending on exactly how much information they need. The infobox saves them having to dig out the bare bones from a weighty text, if that's all they want. It also provides a good starting point for then reading the main text, as they have at least a broad idea of what's going on.

However, I noted your remark that "most of wikipedia's best writers dislike them in biographies". This may well be true, but the best writers are still part (albeit an extremely valuable part) of the process of article creation towards a featured article, which is the standard for the best work. I checked out the last 4 biogs to make the main page. They are, starting with most recent (and with date they became a FA): Ronald Reagan (25 Aug 2007), Archimedes (23 Oct 2007),  Daniel Boone (Sept 2006), Jack Sheppard (10 Feb 2007). The first three have infoboxes, but the last doesn't (note though that it was promoted to FA a year ago).

I checked out the most recent bio articles to be promoted to FA, and they do all have infoboxes: Giovanni Villani, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Pauline Fowler, Eardwulf of Northumbria. My observation is that there is a growing expectation that infoboxes are a standard part of an article and should be included (when the article reaches a reasonable size, that is).

As regards Picasso and Cubism in the field "movement", I have to disagree. If you are to find a key identifier for him, this is undoubtedly the one, and is very useful for someone who wants a starting point, and perhaps doesn't even know that Picasso wasn't one of the Impressionist, for example (true example).

I can't see that any of this should be problematic for your continuing to add excellent content to the main article.

Tyrenius (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyrenius. No, it's not problematic, and thank you for the detailed reply. My only hope was to make a small contribution to the effort to de-emphasize what guideline pages say as the sole arbiters of how articles should be set up, and to emphasize specific reasons why one can reasonably say, "for this page, let's do this". I don't mean to seem critical of your comment here just for making a mention about putting the infobox back. If anything, it was great etiquette to bring it up on the talk page. But the feel of the comment brings me back to a concern about wikipedia... that "gnoming" has led to the development of a lot of formalisms that have been over-deployed so that people can gnome all the more. This has an odd, systemic effect: the substantive, content-oriented edits tend to be treated as givens, fodder for reverts and discussion on the talk page about how these edits "caused" some formalism to be disobeyed. Editorially, it puts the cart before the horse. At a high level, it doesn't reinforce article writing because that, the most difficult task (it is—I'm not saying this as someone who "does it", or fishing for compliments, or dismissing gnome edits, which we all make), tends to receive the least feedback, criticism, praise, input. Now I should shut up, because I've gotten on one of my tangents involving leaps from specific to general. :) –Outriggr § 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)quem vai querer a minha pirikita

Intro
The introduction seems to cover the contents. The article is long, detailed, hampered by not enough available images...Add to the lead if you can. Everything can certainly be improved, if you add a paragraph keep in mind there has been some adjustment in light of the lack of images...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Quem vai querer a minha Pirikita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.56.255.2 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the intro's second paragraph, the article reads "mediums" as a plural of medium. The proper plural is "media." This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.84.150 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

diphtheria is spelt wrong
the article wrongly says diptheria. i can't fix it cuz the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks. Fixed. Get a user name (free and quick), wait 4 days, then you can edit semi-protected articles like this one.  Ty  19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
The article for the actual painting correctly states that it is merely believed that LDdA is based on African artifacts, and that Picasso denied it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.214.60 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to (english) official website
The link is broken. It should be http://www.picasso.fr/us/picasso_page_index.php. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.208.90 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Femme Au Beret Rouge
Does anyone have any information at all about the painting Picasso painted, named "Femme Au Beret Rouge"? Thankyou. Lil.chocoholic.62 (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Handedness
Looking for a little expert input over on the Left-handedness article. I am certain that it is frequently repeated myth that Picasso was left handed, but am finding it hard to source a definite statement on it. There are dozens of mentions of the "fact" online, but nowhere authoritative that I can find saying one way or the other. Even a few indicative photos would help. Could anyone here point me in the right direction? Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Picasso was RIGHT handed and that the idea of his left handedness is a 1960's myth probably started by James T. de Kay in "The Left-Hander's handbook" is well discussed by Chris McManus in "Right Hand, Left Hand The Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures". Page 327. ISBN 0753813556 121.73.90.127 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

LIFE images from Google
Can someone with a registered account please add the Google LIFE images of Picasso to the article: http://images.google.com/images?q=Pablo+Picasso+source:life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.12.44 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Childhood
He was 15 when he applied for the Art School not 13.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.155.69 (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Andalusian-Spanish?
Is this a joke? This is going too far: Pablo Picasso was a Andalusian-Spanish (...). What's next? Thomas Edison was Na Ohio-American inventor?? I think the article should read just "Spanish Painter (...)". Let's be serious. --Karljoos (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please
Picasso must be in the Category:people from Málaga (city)--Animalesuntied (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Where it says Picasso and his father argued frequently, a citation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.142.133 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cubism Section - proposed ammendment and additional informaion.
Replace the line "Picasso and Braque’s paintings at this time have many similarities" with the following text;

A decisive moment in its development occurred during the summer of 1911, when Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso painted side by side in Céret, in the French Pyrenees, each artist producing paintings that are difficult—sometimes virtually impossible—to distinguish from those of the other.

Source Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum 

--Tadhg otoole (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Picasso during Spanish Civil War?
Although not politcally engaged untill the end of the second world war, Picasso backed the spanish Republic during the civil war. Someone should edit/correct the lines on his alleged neutrality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.122.93 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
"Only later, after Picasso’s death, when the rest of the art world had moved on from abstract expressionism, did the critical community come to see that Picasso had already discovered neo-expressionism and was, as so often before, ahead of his time." This seems to me to be an opinion, and not one universally acknowledged. Historian and art-critic Simon Schama for example describes his last 30 years as "the longest, saddest anticlimax in the history of art". Escoville (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No criticism?
No criticism of his so-called art? Really? Cause, a lot of people think it's all glorified emperor's-new-clothes type of crap and that he's a bullshit artist. Surely some significant criticism may have been made at some point? He can't possibly have gone through his career without suffering significant criticism? --89.124.241.234 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Find the sources, add the material and reference it (see WP:REFB).  Ty  14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Picasso is one of the most widely received popular artist of all time, I don't think "criticism" is very important for his wiki page. Everything that has been done has criticism, some people think Albert Einstein was a poser with no original ideas or that world war 2 never really happened, etc. What you're saying is kind of a extremist point of view, you could say you don't like him for some reason but what he did does have quality in it.


 * Fair enough about how he has ultimately been assessed, but except for one remark about some of his late work being seen at the time as "pornographic", we're very short on discussing reception of his work, positive or negative, in the periods in which it was being made. - Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible source, possible additional external link
I haven't been working directly on this article, so I wouldn't presume to add a foreign-language link to the already long list of external links, but Canal Picasso is a very comprehensive series of articles about Picasso and the Museo Picasso Málaga, from Diario Sur Digital. I've found it useful as a source on the museum and the Buenavista Palace in which it is housed; I suspect it may be as useful a source on the man himself and his art. Among other things, it has a very comprehensive family tree. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso = The Blue Period (1901-1904)
In the year of 1902 Picasso was already in a position to create something new of his own, the series of works known as his Blue Period.Though the fundamentals of the Blue Period were evolved in Paris, Barcelona remained the center of Picasso's actual labours till he finally moved to the French capital in April 1904. His pictures, not merely melancholy but profoundly depressed and cheerless, inspired no affection in the public or in the buyers.It wasn't poverty that led him to paint the impoverished outsiders of society, but rather the fact that he painted them made him poor himself. Railway stations, cathedrals, boulevard life in Paris and night clubs and the gloom of drinkers, all appeared in his work.Picasso's Blue Period portrayals of beggars and prostitutes, workers and drinkers in bar, took up this line. Paris wasn't the sole influence of Picasso's Blue Period, Spanish culture played a considerable part too. The Barcelona literary and artistic circles Picasso moved were very interested in anarchism.Many of Picasso's works of 1899 and 1990 were influenced of anarchist literature.

The Absinthe Drinker, 1901 an emotionally arresting painting, draws its power from this.Everything seems stony, the glass, the bottle, the woman.Spatial values are produced less by perspective than by the overlapping of forms. It's clear and balanced composition, with lighter and darker of the tonalities. The tonality difference are so slight that the impression borders on the monochrome, serving solely to intensify the atmospheric charge.The long hands gripping the angular face and upper arm, that serve to emphasize the isolation of the sitter.

For Picasso confrontation with social reality was only a motivation, it wasn't an end in itself.For him it was more important to experiment, to try and test new visual approaches.In the Absinthe Drinker the subject isn't only the melancholy pub atmosphere and the dreariness of alcohol. The painting's meaning also lies in the autonomy of formal means. In Blue Period Picasso was working within a limited range: men and women seated at tables, alone or in twos people with head in hand or arms crossed- modest repertoire in variations, accounts Picasso's work. Picasso was a master of intensifying contrast and evocative effects.The color blue was important in the his experiments.It's melancholy mood was often discussed in theoretical writings on art and in literature at he time.Blue not only denotes melancholy, it also carriers erotic charges.It has a long tradition in Christian iconography, in which it stands for the divine.Since the first third of 19th century there had been a mania for blue,which peaked in 1826 in the tourist discovery of the Blue Grotto on Capri.

Ticiolina (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Tica

Suggested revision to a part of this article
The article currently states:

During the same period that Picasso collaborated with Diaghilev’s troup, he and Igor Stravinsky collaborated on Pulcinella in 1920. Picasso took the opportunity to make several sketches of the composer.

Suggested revision:

As part of his work with Diaghilev's troupe, in 1920 Picasso designed sets and costumes for Stravinsky's Pulcinella, and took advantage of his work with the composer to make several sketches of him.

Reasons for the changes:

Mainly that the current language implies that the collaboration with Stravinsky on Pulcinella was in addition to Picasso's work with Diaghilev's company.

Also, please note that the word "troupe" has an e on the end of it.

[This may be unnecessary, but I could not use italics on the word Pulcinella in the text. The article does have the italics, so if this edit is inserted, I just want to be sure the italics are retained.] Cpeakescribe (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

La Vie is a wrong link.
It leads to some dumb "flyscooter" thingy, not to an article on the Painting. Please correct (I can't, it's locked). -- 92.229.115.131 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, good catch...Modernist (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Actually not. My mistake.--Chaser (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention that there is apparently a copyright violation in the article. This diff shows the insertion of almost word-for-word the content from Artinthepicture.com. The insertion is from January 2003 and the earliest the internet archive has for that page is late 2005. However, given that the text here came in one fell swoop rather than evolving organically, I think it's more likely that these paragraphs were copied into Wikipedia from elsewhere. I have removed the few paragraphs from that site that remain in the article.--Chaser (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyvio may actually be OK - see here. I'm trying to get into contact with the webmaster.--Chaser (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I figured I'd re-write the basic material - which is relevant in my own words . If you gain permission - you have my permission to revert my recent additions there, or incorporate my stuff with the old stuff :)...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No response from the webmaster. Infrogmation here asserted ownership of similar text. I've since found out that the Internet Archives have been archiving since 2003 and that the earliest entry for artinthepicture.com is from 2005. I think I was wrong about this one. I'll defer to regular editors of this page on whether to restore the previous text (apparently not a copyvio) or leave the recent re-write in place. Thanks, folks.--Chaser (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Content at the end of the article about new showing of work reads like an advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.19.123 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Picasso's "Cowardice"
Under the heading, Political Views, it is stated that Picasso's contemporaries thought his pacifism was merely a function of his cowardice. This claim is backed up by quoting Adam Gopnik, writing in 1997 in the New Yorker. Gopnik was not Picasso's contemporary. Moreover, Gopnik's claim is entirely ahistorical.

Weirdly, this New Yorker quote is sourced to James Fenton's book Leonardo's Nephew; in an article in the book, originally published in the New York Review of Books, Gopnik's article is exposed as obnoxiously wrong-headed. Picasso was a Spaniard, and had no reason to fight in World War I. He was 58 years old when WWII started. Picasso was in fact brave to stay in Paris throughout the Nazi occupation, since he was the leading "degenerate artist" and had painted the famously, powerfully anti-fascist Guernica. He was recognized as a moral example throughout the war and came out of it with tremendous prestige politically.

The notion that Picasso was a coward is baseless, and should not be published here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.25.164 (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and have edited the section accordingly...Modernist (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent
Original drawing by Picasso "Don Quixote" discovered in Tbilisi http://en.trend.az/news/politics/foreign/1726338.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.83.2 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is the IPA pronunciation given correct? It seems like "Ruiz" is stressed on the last consonant, which is pretty weird. And also what is the caron doing on the r? I can't find what that stands for. MuDavid (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Museu Picasso
The phrase "The Museu Picasso in Barcelona features many of Picasso’s early works, created while he was living in Spain" should to be "The Museu Picasso in Barcelona features many of Picasso’s early works, created while he was exiled in France" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.247.241 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the museum indeed contains many of his works from his early Spanish years (along with many from his time in France). Also, it's inaccurate to refer to his time in France as an "exile" - his move to Paris was not politically-motived. Funnyhat (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Picasso freely traveled between Spain and France until the 1930s. After the Spanish Civil War and Francisco Franco assumed power in Spain Picasso having painted Guernica in 1937 self-exiled himself to France, vowing never to return to Spain as long as Franco retained power. Franco remained in power from 1939 until 1975. Picasso died in 1973 having never returned to Spain.Modernist (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Picasso painted hundreds of pieces including the "Innocent Blue Girl". This painting on plywood was produced in aproximatly 1965. Picasso himself gave the painting to Lee Nordness, the owner of the Nordness Galleries of New York, NY. Nordness Galleries later sold this painting to Michele Reseigh of New Mexico. (See attached photo)Cointobefree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Citizenship
Picasso moved to France when he was 19 years old and remained there until his death. He did travel to Spain once in a while (although not during the Franco years which lasted from 1936 to 1976). He maintained no residence in Spain after 1904. He spent 80% of his life in France and acquired the French citizenship in 1919 (he was 38 years old). His children and grand-children are all French citizens by birth (and from their mothers who were all French). The article should mention his dual citizenship like all other Wikipedia articles do (cf. the article on Einstein for example). We should something like "Spanish-born naturalized French". Such examples are legions on Wikipedia. Picasso should be no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Picasso never had French citizenship and lived in Spain after 1904 and before 1936 in many times. Sorry for my bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.52.14 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

His father did not say he would never paint again
The section that says Picasso's father proclaimed he would never paint again is false. It's a myth. Please remove it. 134.139.233.240 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest ever monumental statue of Pablo is not even in the article
Sorry to change this but, please, correct the name of Pablo Ruíz Picasso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.169.174.126 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have missed to include the biggest statue ever Pablo Picasso constructed in Kristinehamn in Sweden, it's mnetioned on the Swedish version of this page while on the English is only the much smaller statue from Halmstad mentioned. Take a look at the statue here http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Kristinehamn_Picasso_statue_06.jpg and http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.149.1 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Impact upon China’s most famous contemporary artist Zhang Daqian
Orionandhsu (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Picasso has inspired a great number of artists.  It is not clear why this particular case should be especially notable and merit inclusion in the article.  Favonian (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no compelling reason to mention this particular artist. I don't know that he is the most famous Chinese artist, and since he died in '83 I wouldn't call him contemporary. But in any case, we'd need some scholarship to back this up in order to include it. freshacconci talktalk 11:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s indeed very difficult to measure the true contribution or the fame of an artist to the world. If we try to judge it by just the selling price of his (her) works of art, then it would become too much realistic! But still, the recent “Landscape Painting” which adopted Pablo Ruiz Picasso’s Western techniques and concepts and was painted by Zhang Daqian has been reaching to a new selling record of 15 Million US dollars at the auction house of Beijing in May, 2010. Therefore if we try to record the event of these two “Painting Masters”, apart from western and eastern world, with different painting techniques and concepts, met each other in 1956, exchanged their mutual painting ideas and experiences, then created another era of new style for the people in the world to appreciate. Although we didn’t know what content these two painting masters actually discussed with each other, but the changes of style were indeed inspired and happened, and made contributions to the world. So why don’t we just record the “Event” truly happened in their respective “Biographies”. Orionandhsu (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

early life
believe he moved to      La Coruña         , not    A Coruna Kathy annie laurie (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) kathy annie laurie

271 Picasso works were just discovered.
I created a new article called Pierre Le Guennec about 271 Picasso works that were just discovered. Perhaps that article's name will eventually need to be changed, but "Pierre Le Guennec" is what people will use as a search term, so that's what I'm starting it as. Sclt1127 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly, something about that recent "find" needs to be mentioned in this article as well ... no? I am surprised that there is no mention of it whatsoever on this article page.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Monument
Public? If so - where in public is it? or is it private...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.17.218.101, 18 January 2011
The seattle exhibit ended Jan 17, not Jan 9

24.17.218.101 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you...Modernist (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Picasso and not Ruiz?
If the man's name was Ruiz y Picasso, why do we call the painter Picasso and not Ruiz (his father's family name)? In Spanish, anybody with his name would be called Señor Ruiz, not Señor Picasso (much as Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega are called Castro and Ortega, not Ruiz or Saavedra, respectively). I wonder what Picasso's cohorts DID call him?? S B Harris 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My recollection is of having read that as a young man he chose to disassociate himself from his father by jettisoning Ruiz and using Picasso. Now we need a source.... JNW (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A somewhat less dramatic explanation: . JNW (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Picasso, signed his own name as Picasso, not Ruiz. AJseagull1 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the reference given above:

"On OCT. 25, 1881, Pablo Diego Jose Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Maria de los Remedios Crispin Crispiniano Santisma Trinidad was born to Jose Ruiz Blasco and Maria Picasso Lopez in Malaga, Spain. He was called Pablo Ruiz Picasso, but by 1901 he had dropped his father's surname in favor of his mother's. His choice probably was influenced by the fact that Picasso, a name of Italian origin, sounded more distinguished than the common Spanish name Ruiz."

The two explanations given above by editors are not incompatible, as dropping your father's surname in favor if your mother's (for whatever reason-- we don't have to say at this point) is done simply by failing to include it in your work-signature. Anyway, the ref is probably good enough that we should include something about this in the article, perhaps at the place where his ancestry is discussed. Otherwise it will cause endless confusion. S B Harris 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on his name is disproportionately long, compared to what is provided on his life and work. In my opinion, "Pablo Ruiz Picasso, known as Pablo Picasso" would have sufficed. 74.0.240.106 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Quality of works in later life
The sentence "At the time these works were dismissed by most as pornographic fantasies of an impotent old man or the slapdash works of an artist who was past his prime" is (1) undignified writing and (2) highly speculative. I don't know if the author was around in the 1960s to judge the tone of Picasso criticism but there must have been some critics who loved his work. I did, although I am not an art critic. He pursued explicitly erotic (or pornographic) themes throughout his life and there was no particular reason for him to stop in his eighties. 74.0.240.106 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * This simply comes down to sources. No editor's personal opinion matters in the least. Yes, many critics did say exactly these things, and in fact (as an art scholar) I can say this is how his late work is still largely viewed. However, to say so without citing an unimpugnable tertiary source would of course be explicitly incorrect, and such commentary should be removed until correctly sourced. "no original research". Though I happen to think his late work quite interesting and powerful, as do many contemporary artists.Tao2911 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just now read the passage. it's fine! It's a perfectly decent summary of exactly the critical response then and later. It's clearly from a decent source, though it would be better if that source was cited. But there is no reason to remove it.Tao2911 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lenin Peace Prize/Stalin Peace Prize
Dear Modernist -

Here are the explanations you requested for the my edits you undid recently.

Note 21, in the "Political Views" section, offers a source that says, "In 1949 he attended a similar congress in Rome, and after his delegation was denied entry to the United States in 1950, he traveled to another congress in Sheffield, England, where he gave a speech. In November of that year Picasso received the Stalin Peace Prize from the Soviet government in recognition of his efforts."

From the Wikisite on the subject: The International Lenin Prize should not be confused with the International Peace Prize, awarded by the World Peace Council. There was also a Stalin Prize (later renamed the USSR State Prize) created during 1941 which was awarded annually to accomplished Soviet writers, composers, artists and scientists. (my emphasis)

Picasso was awarded the Stalin, not the Lenin, prize in 1950. The contributor simply made an error in conflating the two awards; quite understandable.

The hyperlink should be changed to "and in 1950 received the Stalin Peace Prize from the Soviet government.[21]"

The other edit was one of integrating an existing source into another; a part of collaborative editing. I placed the following entry, "In 1962, he received the International Lenin Peace Prize." within a particular context, which gives the fact more significance:

"Moscow used Picasso’s reputation for propaganda purposes; privately the regime dismissed his works as decadent, while officially offering him accolades (In 1962, he received the Lenin Peace Prize.) His paintings were never shown. His potential as an artist was “wasted” by the Stalinists, according to biographer and art critic John Berger.[30]"

This was not a "deletion" but simply an edit, that moved the existing quote to a place it does more good, don't you agree?

In addition, I inserted some spacing that helped to emphasize the Salvador Dali quote, to make it stand out from the preceeding text.

RSVP --Mysweetoldetc. 19:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mysweetoldetc.
 * Thanks for your explanation. Please re-add your additions with references, or I will. Well done!..Modernist (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1950 Picasso was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize which was awarded to foreigners from outside the Soviet Union and not the USSR State Prize or Stalin Prize which was for Soviet citizens. After 1956 the Stalin Peace Prize was changed to the Lenin Peace Prize and in 1962 Picasso received the Lenin Peace Prize also...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Modernist -


 * Thanks for the clarification; the Stalinist nomenclature is puzzling. But here's one more detail on the citation:


 * Citation 23 at http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=15752, states that that Picasso recieved the "Lenin Peace Prize" in 1961, but is reported in the Picasso text as 1962.


 * The Wiki source, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Peace_Prize, says 1962 ("International Lenin Prize"). Can we use our wiki site as a source, or is that considered bad form?


 * I'm also adding a brief quotation from the surrealist Andre Breton; historically, this provides an insight into a "leftist" criticism of Picasso's Stalinist loyalties. It also adds a rhetorical counterpoint to the Dali quote. --Mysweetoldetc. 18:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Mysweetoldetc., I think 62 is probably the date, but I would not worry too much about the discrepancy. Your Huffington quote about Breton is misleading however and I fixed it. Keep in mind that Picasso helped to support Breton over the years especially in the 1920s and 1930s by giving him pieces to sell. Additionally Breton was friends with Trotsky whom he met in Mexico while visiting Rivera and Kahlo, and Breton's comments about Picasso came after Stalin had Trotsky assassinated...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Picasson and military service
Dear Modernist -

"Picasso remained neutral during World War I, the Spanish Civil War, and World War II, refusing to fight for any side or country. As a Spanish citizen living in France, Picasso was under no compulsion to fight against the invading Germans in either World War. In the Spanish Civil War, service for Spaniards living abroad was optional and would have involved a voluntary return to the country to join either side. While Picasso expressed anger and condemnation of Francisco Franco and fascists through his art, he did not take up arms against them. He also remained aloof from the Catalan independence movement --Mysweetoldetc. 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)during his youth despite expressing general support and being friendly with activists within it."

This uncited paragraph has lingered here for some time, but its point is not clear. The fact that it's uncited warrants its removal. And there's a POV lurking here, but I can't seem to put my finger on it. If you have no objection, I'll remove it. Mysweetoldetc. 20:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mysweetoldetc,
 * Before removing it - try to reference the various assertions. I will give it some thought also...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Later work
Dear Modernist -

I don't routinely insert material into any page without some attempt to correctly cite it; references can be disputed, not this. What we have here amounts to, "this is my POV on some matter; now kindly locate some references for it, if you please". This won't do.

- Sorry you object to what amounts to common sense however WP:UCS is essential here...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have some proprietary feeling about the paragraph, or know the contributor, request the citation, if you would. But dumping material like this on the page does not warrant my research support on the basis of "collaboration".

- As I mentioned if you want to change something write it here and try to achieve consensus...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This also applies to the following uncited edit under "Later Works":

"Devoting his full energies to his work, Picasso became more daring, his works more colorful and expressive, and from 1968 through 1971 he produced a torrent of paintings and hundreds of copperplate etchings. At the time these works were dismissed by most as pornographic fantasies of an impotent old man or the slapdash works of an artist who was past his prime."

One editor commented on this correctly and called it:

"(1) undignified writing and (2) highly speculative." 19 January 2011 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Another editor defended it saying: "It's clearly from a decent source, though it would be better if that source was cited. But there is no reason to remove it.". Tao2911 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How would Tao2911 possibly know if it was a "decent source"? This is all nonsense, Modernist, and you know it. Mysweetoldetc. 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only nonsense that I see are your unsigned additions here - you've been asked repeatedly to sign your edits...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Mysweetoldetc
 * First of all - sign your name! Secondly there is nothing wrong with the passages that you don't like it was added in January 2003 with little objection. As you can see I added a few things to the passage about his political views. If you can make your additions this is a collaborative project, however that passage is ok as far as I am concerned...Modernist (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try referencing by all means. I'll look at it later or tomorrow when I have time ...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Modernist -
 * Thank you for your response, and the link to the 2003 edit. The original edit was unsourced; eight years later it remains so. I stand by my earlier observation, that material is inserted in this encyclopedia, with the expectation that it will sound "ok" or appear to be from a "decent source", although none is provided. Commonsense ain't so common. As to my failure to sign my name properly, I've been rather untoward; let's see if it works this time. Best.

Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature
I propose we add a signature of Picasso, the signature regarding this article is. GaneshBhakt (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been long discussions  with the consensus being against adding signatures to artist infoboxes...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

unsourced
"Picasso demonstrated extraordinary artistic talent in his early years, painting in a realistic manner through his childhood and adolescence"

Lets get a source here people.

98.114.200.207 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede doesn't require sourcing. It's a summary of the article. All of that is covered in the article it self and should be sourced there if it is not already. freshacconci talktalk 20:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 18 October 2011
While this article does mention that Picasso had four children it does not name any of them and in particular his very famous daughter, the designer Paloma Picasso. It may be understandable for non famous children to be overlooked but a famous one should be mentioned and a link to her Wikipedia article included.

This may not be considered significant enough to mention but those who knew him are aware that one of his past times was raising pigeons. He was so taken by this activity that he named his daughter Paloma (pigeon). see http://www.fbipigeons.com/FAMOUS%20FANCIERS.htm

72.209.57.149 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All four children: Paul, Maya, Claude and Paloma are already mentioned in the Personal section, Paloma Picasso has her own article, I will link it...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Potentially copyrighted content from Pablopicasso.org
The final paragraph from the section "Later Works" also appears verbatim on the "Later Works" page on PabloPicasso.org (http://www.pablopicasso.org/laterperiod.jsp). It is unclear which was written first. Chimeracoder (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-revisionists Category
I don't think Pablo Picasso belongs to that category. Like the article states, he was never that much, ideologically speaking, a Communist. He once said about his joining of the French Communist Party that he was going to Communism, like "someone who goes to the fountain". He was never a conventional Communist and condemned publically the Soviet invasion of Hungary by all known sources. This is shown at the study Picasso, by Carsten-Peter Warncke and Ingo F. Walter, from the Taschen Editions. This category is for Communists who opposed more democratic views of Communism, so I don't believe he fits the category not even remotelly.Mistico (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Work would keep him alive?
There is no credible reference to Picasso's "superstitious belief that his work would keep him alive." Aside from repeating this Wikipedia entry, there are only five references in the whole www that Picasso held this belief, and none with citations. As it stands, therefore, this is a romantic notion. (m.suskind (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC))


 * This seems relevant although not exactly supportive of the wording in the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! This is a primary reference that does not at all support the statement "(Picasso) superstitiously believed that work would keep him alive." This Wiki entry should be struck and rewritten to reflect this source material, even though it is based on assumptions by two of Picasso's friends, and Picasso was known for contradictions about art and life.

Late Thoughts: Reflections on Artists and Composers at Work, Painter and Crow, 2002, page 47

"A curious paradox emerges from observations made by two of Picasso's close friends. One of them, aware that the artist had a pronounced fear of dying, surmised, "He thought that if he stopped working, that was death. So, that's why until his death he worked every day." The other entertained a competing notion:  "Until his death, he had the desire to work. He used to say, 'I don't go out any longer in the car because some imbecile will... run into me and I've still got a lot of paintings to do." The first commentatior states that Picasso kept working in order to avoid dying; according to the second, Picasso avoided dying in order to keep working."

Emphasis on SURMISED and ENTERTAINED A COMPETING NOTION.... There is no citation for the first friend, and I'd have to buy the book to find the second...

Thanks again.. brilliant!! I will be Most Interested if you can find any more :))

(m.suskind (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Could we just put this sentence in the article, based on that source:


 * "Friends of Picasso noted an association made by Picasso between working on his art and the inevitable arrival of death, although one friend felt that Picasso merely wanted to delay death so that he could turn out more art, with the other friend contending that Picasso felt that he could delay death by unceasingly working." Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

or simply "Picasso had a pronounced fear of death as it would be the end of his creativity."

This entire paragraph was lifted from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The enormous body of Picasso’s work remains, and the legend lives on—a tribute to the vitality of the “disquieting” Spaniard with the “sombre…piercing” eyes who superstitiously believed that work would keep him alive. For nearly 80 of his 91 years Picasso devoted himself to an artistic production that contributed significantly to and paralleled the whole development of modern art in the 20th century." see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Picasso&diff=464282864&oldid=745029

It is an article written by Marilyn McCully and is itself without citations, though she hints that the superstition statement may have come from Jaime Sabartes.

This paragraph, if allowed to stand, should include citation to Encyclopedia Britannica and to Marilyn McCully. But Wikipedia does not like to do that sort of thing so the paragraph should be struck and rewritten, not merely a paraphrase of McCully. (m.suskind (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I've removed the second paragraph of our article since it appears to be cribbed from Britannica. Editors are welcome to replace it with something better. Perhaps a new paraphrase of McCully is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-added a paragraph that was formerly used until October 7, 2011 - when it was replaced by the now deleted paragraph...Modernist (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem
I wound up removing two rather nice paragraphs that had been added here on October 7, since they are both from Britannica. ('The enormous body..' and 'Picasso's art..'). Notified the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Britannica material has now been repeated 58,000 times on the web. Quel Disastre!


 * McCully's first paragraph did not seem nice or accurate to me, which is why I started this whole shebang. McCully's second paragraph I agree was pretty nice.  A rewrite should be done making the point that Picasso's career spanned from Cezanne to Pop Art, and that he was the major innovator for most of the movements in between, (not, propably, abstract expressionism.)  Given some time I can try a rewrite.  Bus stop is very smart, too. (m.suskind (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

4
He had 4 children not 3, and the quote seems relevant to me, however unique, this article Pierre Le Guennec has been in the news lately and seems relevant as well, please note here before making any more major deletions and changes. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4? he had 5!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.52.186 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)