Jump to content

Talk:Pablo Picasso/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Picasso s real full name?

On the norwegian page, Picasso s full name is: Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruiz y Picasso.

I am no expert, and would be happy to know which one of the english or the norwegian page, has the real full name? (1101) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.218.194 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC) he had 50 he was a man hoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.104.9.71 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know... I think it is an overly long name. For many time, Spansih only have one or two names, the first surname of the father, and the first of the mother.--2.137.111.82 (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

troll name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voukras (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

bipolar

Many articles say Pablo is bipolar so maybe people should look into it and add stuff about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.247.142 (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Name

If the page weren't padlocked, I'd put the first paragraph like this:

Pablo Ruiz Picasso, known as Pablo Picasso or simply Picasso. (Baptized as Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso)

The longest name is kind of trivia, isn't it? --88.13.102.5 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and complacency

Clearly, the most outstanding feature of this article is tha lack of citations. Whole swathes of sections lack footnotes. 36hourblock (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There are currently 70 citations; although we can always use more referencing; 70 are quite a few...Modernist (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed? Nine percent of them are tied up in this quote: Picasso es pintor, yo también; [...] Picasso es español, yo también; Picasso es comunista, yo tampoco.(Picasso is a painter, so am I; [...] Picasso is a Spaniard, so am I; Picasso is a communist, neither am I.)[33][34][35][36][37][38] 36hourblock (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think the article needs more referencing - then add referenced material - hmmm lets see 6 references to the Dali quote - hmmm only 64 references, gosh!...Modernist (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW the quote and references were added by an editor here:[1] in October 2008, perfectly fine, interesting and referenced addition to the article...Modernist (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

HATS OFF TO EWULP! Ignoring Modernist's request to "add reference material", Ewulp has improved the article by removing excessive junk citations. We all benefit from his/her sensible approach in rejecting edits "in the Modernist style". Ewulp: kindly keep a close on this site, won't you?. 36hourblock (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Name

Can anyone tell me what's that nonsense about that long name? I'm talking about the intro paragraph, where I've just removed Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad. The name of baptism is not official at all! As a trivia, it's OK it appears in Early life, but not in the intro. Pablo Ruiz Picasso is the official name, and as such, it's the only one which has to be writen in the intro. --Kokoo (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

While changing the lede is debatable - removing the birthname is unacceptable and I oppose the move...Modernist (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What is art?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Art is not true, said Pablo Picasso, according to the Croatian daily Vecernji list, adding that everyone knows that. Art is a lie that helps us understand the truth - at least the one that was given to us to understand. I would add the famous statement of the Nazi propaganda founder Goebels: "1000 times repeted lie become truth!" What is it art? The best Propaganda? What, what is art? 78.2.76.224 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Uzbek museum unearths forgotten Picasso ceramics

Possibly of interest: Uzbek museum unearths forgotten Picasso ceramics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly of interest and I think could very reasonably be added. What a find Andy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2013

Change Pablo Picaso name to the actual real complete name: Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso Huge, I know :) Ramiro Araujo (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. See WP:COMMONNAME RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks

horrible dragon ball z goku akira toriyama\\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.166.184 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a move/renaming

This page should be called, Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.236.86.10 (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

His birthname is mentioned in the article already, as is your comment already mentioned on this page. It was denied. Rip-Saw (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect name in Early Life

Under early life it says he was baptized Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad.

Crispiniano should be Cipriano, as listed under his birth name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.176.65 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Royan & the Lascaux quote:" we have learnt nothing"

if made at all, would have been during his stay at Royan,which is not here mentioned. the period was between the German invasion & conquest. The story is nebulous, for some sources refer to Altamira. Royan is only 178 km from Les Eyzies, but do we know for certain that Picasso went there? There are those who claim that he painted Lascaux! AptitudeDesign (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Life

I placed the section “Life” at the top, before “Art”, as seems to be the usual practice for Wikipedia articles on real people, placing biography first. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw, this is, I believe, my most radical edit on Wikipedia so far.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this was such a radical edit that someone reverted it on the grounds that such edits need to be discussed first. Any opinions on whether such an edit is recommendable?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You just rearranged the sections, is that right? If so, you could have marked it as a minor edit. An "Early life" section in a biography usually comes just after the lead; WP:ORDER says to put lists of works near the end. —rybec 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:ORDER refers to bulleted lists, irrelevant to the layout of this article.Coldcreation (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It does refer to bulleted lists, but the gallery in this article serves a similar purpose. Although not bulleted, it is a list of works. —rybec 04:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Both layouts present a chronological rift: The current article (left layout) jumps from Later works to Life and Early life. The layout on the right (edit reverted by Coldcreation) jumps from Death to Children to Art Before 1901. The current article layout shows Picasso's works first, stressing the importance of the work for which he became well known.Coldcreation (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • 1 Art
    • 1.1 Before 1901
    • 1.2 Blue Period
    • 1.3 Rose Period
    • 1.4 African-influenced Period
    • 1.5 Cubism
    • 1.6 Classicism and surrealism
    • 1.7 Later works
  • 2 Life
    • 2.1 Early life
    • 2.2 Career beginnings
    • 2.3 Personal life
      • 2.3.1 War years and beyond
    • 2.4 Death
    • 2.5 Children
  • 3 Political views
  • 4 Artistic legacy
    • 4.1 Recent major exhibitions
  • 5 See also
  • 6 Notes
  • 7 References
  • 8 External links
    • 8.1 Essays
    • 8.2 Museums
  • 1 Life
    • 1.1 Early life
    • 1.2 Career beginnings
    • 1.3 Personal life
      • 1.3.1 War years and beyond
    • 1.4 Death
    • 1.5 Children
  • 2 Art
    • 2.1 Before 1901
    • 2.2 Blue Period
    • 2.3 Rose Period
    • 2.4 African-influenced Period
    • 2.5 Cubism
    • 2.6 Classicism and surrealism
    • 2.7 Later works
  • 3 Political views
  • 4 Artistic legacy
    • 4.1 Recent major exhibitions
  • 5 See also
  • 6 Notes
  • 7 References
  • 8 External links
    • 8.1 Essays
    • 8.2 Museums

Coldcreation (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally, the life should come first; a survey of art, architecture, and archaeology biography Featured Articles shows that every artist's biography that has been promoted to FA has the birth, childhood and training in the first section following the lede. That this is the expected conventional order doesn't mean that there can never be an exception, but the current shape of our article is badly disjointed. Picasso's 1939–40 retrospective shouldn't be happening before his early works and his birth.
An arrangement of the article in the conventional order—biography followed by more detailed description and analysis of the art—was stable for 6 1/2 years, from November 2006 until May 2013, when it was changed with no prior discussion. In the eight months since then, there have been two edits by two different editors to restore the previous order, which I also prefer. To answer the objection that Picasso's art is the most important element of his biography and should be emphasized, some of the material could be integrated into the bio, and some fluff could be trimmed from the bio—e.g., is there any scholarly source for his alleged last words? As far as I can tell the story comes from Paul McCartney who says he heard it from Dustin Hoffman who had read it someplace. Ewulp (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Good points Ewulp (talk). The article needs to be overhauled. However, rather than Bio first and Work later, I would use a format where the life and art of Picasso become fused, or at the very least overlapped. For example, discuss the Blue Period (1901–1904) when discussing his "Career beginnings" (between 1900 and 1905, discuss and show Les Demoiselles when on the subject of his life in 1907, when he "joined an art gallery that had recently been opened in Paris by Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler", and so on. In this way there will be no chronological rift between life and art, between art and life.

Something like this:

  • 1 Early life
    • 1.1 Before 1901
    • 1.2 Blue Period
    • 1.3 Rose Period
    • 1.4 African-influenced Period
    • 1.5 Cubism
    • 1.6 Classicism and surrealism
    • 1.7 War years and beyond
    • 1.8 Later works
    • 1.9 Children (Note: this section could be mixed in above)
    • 2.0 Death
  • 3 Political views
  • 4 Artistic legacy
    • 4.1 Recent major exhibitions
  • 5 See also
  • 6 Notes
  • 7 References
  • 8 External links
    • 8.1 Essays
    • 8.2 Museums

I'll give it a shot. Coldcreation (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Entire article revised

The entire article has been revised, arranged in chronological order, art and life together, two new images, external links spam cleaned out. Note that the Cubist images (in their own gallery section) are numerous and closely dated between 1909 and 1916. Works beginning with Les Demoiselles and extending through the Cubist epoch are responsible for revolutionizing modern art specifically (the history of art in general). This is the period for which Picasso became famous and influential. For this reason, these Cubist works need to be shown: all of them.

Note too, this revision is by no means final. Work needs to be done still. At least, for now, there is an almost seamless transition between events associated with the artists life and his work. Coldcreation (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing from the article is what Picasso did during World War I. With the exception of one painting dated 1916, there is nothing mentioned during this important (albeit tragic) period. Also, in the section entitled Classicism and surrealism, aside from "his contact with the surrealists", nothing is mentioned of Picasso's surrealist work. Now off to the Georges Braque article. Coldcreation (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Update: both surrealism and Word War I have now been treated to some extent. Coldcreation (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

Pablo Picasso Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruiz y Picasso Demon cat (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The intro reads "Pablo Ruiz y Picasso, also known as Pablo Picasso was a Spanish painter, sculptor, printmaker, ceramicist, stage designer, poet and playwright who spent most of his adult life in France". I don't see how is this relevant for the first sentence of the article. Yes, he did indeed live in France for a long time (although never became a French citizen), but the first sentence, as I understand, should include the name, pronunciation, nationality (birth and/or acquired), and the main reason why this is person is relevant. I have removed the sentence who spent most of his adult life in France, but it was reverted by User:Modernist. It is not relevant for who he is that he lived in France. Let's see examples from other biographies of people who lived most of their life in another country: 

    * Sergei Rachmaninoff
    * Albert Einstein
    * Pablo Casals
    * Arnold Schwarzenegger 
    * Dmitri Nabokov
    * Billy Wilder

Please discuss.--Karljoos (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note - your erroneous assertion was first deleted by User:Johnbod. And when you reinstated your assumptive edit I deleted it...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly It is very relevant that Picasso lived in France. Clearly you don't understand Picasso, and 20th century art. Picasso, Miró, Gris, Dali, and other important artists left Spain and went to Paris...and stayed there. Partially because Paris was the center of the art world until WW 2; partially because of the need for recognition to succeed in the world art market and partially because of politics. It is not an accident that Picasso did not return to Spain or leave France...Modernist (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let's look at those examples! Billy Wilder, like others, is an "Austrian-born American filmmaker". Casals is described as "Catalan", and depending on how Catalan-nationalist you are, remained living in Catalonia when he lived for a long time just over the French border. And so on. These don't help your case at all, as Picasso never changed his citizenship. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
You don't know what I understand or not, so please refrain from making personal remarks. Paris was indeed the centre of the arts in the first half of the 20th century, and Spain was a hostile place for many people, especially for artists, until the late 70s. So was Nazi Germany for many artists and scientists who emigrated to the States and did the bulk of their work there, but unless they became American citizens that fact is not given in the first sentence. Why should it be different here?--Karljoos (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Pau Casals spent most of his life outside Spain, and Billy Wilder became an American citizen. As Johnbod said, Picasso never became a French citizen (although he applied once in the 40s). Beethoven lived in Vienna most part of his life, but he is still known as "the genious from Bohn".--Karljoos (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Before his move to Paris ca. his 19th birthday, Picasso had won an honorable mention in Madrid for an academic student work, and had shown some drawings in Barcelona. International fame came only after the move to Paris, and he spent the next 70 years in France. An article about a person who achieved notability while living as an expatriate often explains this in the first sentence; see Alfred Sisley and Chaim Soutine for examples. Nothing in MOS:BIO prohibits the inclusion of this important information. How would the reader be served by leaving it out? Ewulp (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling Under Early Life

Last paragraph of Early Life, second sentence, the word "enrollment" is spelled as enrolment. I don't know how to fix it since it's a protected article. Someone please fix it. It's bugging me. 137.164.228.86 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Keo

done...Modernist (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have changed it back to "enrolment", as this is the proper British spelling. I have done this because after using a quick CTRL-F on "our" I find words like "honouring", "colours" and "favourite", which is the British way of spelling. WP:ARTCON clearly says that within a given article there should be consistency of one version of spelling of English. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WRONG: "He had also remained aloof from the Catalan independence movement during his youth despite expressing general support and being friendly with activists within it." There was no independence movements in Catalonia at that time. It seems an added of Catalan nationalists trolls for look Picasso as catalan supporter.

Correction of date

Since I can't edit this article, I would like someone with the permissions to do it. Below the first photograph it is mentioned "1908-1909" which is incorrect as he was 91 years old so it should be "1908-1999". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayushp0102 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The photograph was shot between 1908 and 1909. That is correct. Coldcreation.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

Actually, it's Pablo Diego Jose Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Maria de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santisima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso. 209.152.151.50 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015

The early life section should be after career begins section, for he is younger in the second section then in the first 24.178.176.126 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)  Not done - illogical - he wasn't baptized, or said his first words after his career began. - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Name

Main section says "Crispiniano", infobox says "Cipriano". Anyone know which one is correct? Lexicon (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The name on his baptismal certificate differs slightly from the name on his birth record. On-line Picasso Project. ...Crispiniano was omitted and in its place he was baptized Cipriano (the reason is unknown). It's sometimes written Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso (See here). Coldcreation (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That name also removes the "Maria" that has been in the name for years in this article. I had changed it to an even longer name as found on Biography.com. But I have no particular faith in it (or any version), so feel free to edit it to whatever you think is correct. Lexicon (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I Agree with the non-faith, even on biography.com. María was commonly used as a middle name in men (i.e.: José María) in very religious families, so it wouldn't be strange for him to have it. Second, the name currently displayed sounds like if was some sort of joke. «Clito Ruiz» is phonetic for clitoris, which would be very unlikely given the care the family took naming him.
I'd mark the name as "source unreliable" to warn the viewers until some biographer can sort this out with facts. Schmick (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, your last link appears to go to something completely unrelated. Lexicon (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Do the names really need to be separated by commas as at present?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That is the way Picasso's full name is written in the catalogue raisonné by Pierre Daix, et al. Coldcreation (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree, that's the way it's given in the 1988 source. Hard to find anything more reliable? And I know we can't use other language wikis as a guide, but it's curious that the fr.wiki also uses commas, while the es.wiki does not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Catalan wiki is also without commas, but their source is a dead link to an English webpage. The Spanish wiki source for the name is an El Mundo article of 2009. The only other reliable source I can think of is the extensive Zervos catalogues. Next time I'm at Centre Pompidou library I see what's written in them. Until then, it looks like the commas should remain. Coldcreation (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

About eighteen months ago, without notice or discussion, an editor substituted a nonfree image of Picasso in place of the longstanding free image there. When I replaced it today, as routine NFCC/WMF licensing policy enforcement. User:Modernist is, without any discussion, reverting this action, making a groundless accusation of "VANDALISM" [2]. This is as clearcut a case of a replaceable free image as one could ask for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You have vandalized this article, those images that you removed should be used in this article with Fair Use Rationals which they both have. STOP VANDALIZING ARTICLES THAT YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND...Modernist (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that the "freeness" of the replacement photo is frankly unlikely to stand much scrutiny, and the Commons file does not contain the "clear evidence" it is supposed to. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Portrait de Picasso, 1908.jpg and File:Pablo Picasso with his sister Lola, 1889.jpg are both public domain images that never should have been uploaded as non-free. Problem fixed. Coldcreation (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed the lead image once again. This public domain photograph of Picasso taken in 1904 shows an expressive artist during an important time of his life, as he made the transition from the Blue Period to the Rose Period. Coldcreation (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved image of Picasso in 1904 down in the article, and replaced it with former lead image of 1908. Both images showing the artist at successive artistic peaks in his career should remain in the article. As to which should be the lead image is debatable. The quality of the current image (of 1908) is perhaps superior to that of the 1904 image. For this reason, and for the encyclopedic reason that Picasso had just completed one of his most famous paintings the year before (the proto-Cubist Les Demoiselles), I've replaced it. Coldcreation (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

The article's organization strikes me as very unusual. Is there a good reason why there is no section on Personal Life, and all his many marriages, affairs, children, etc. are built into the sections on the stages in his art? MikeR613 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is because his wives were inextricably linked to successive stages of his art. Coldcreation (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Early works

It would be nice to have an example of Picasso's teenage work to show his early style and precocity. My personal choice would be either Portrait of the artist's mother (1896), or The old fisherman (1895), though there are quite a few to choose from. I don't want to upload one myself as I'm rather bemused by the copyright situation, but perhaps someone who knows the score in this regard could assist? --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016

163.150.226.239 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC) jnhugcfycrcucyry

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

You wouldn't expect this to be an issue for a subject like this, but this reads as if it was written by someone working for the Picasso Family rather than an independent source. Writing as if he was doing nothing but putting great effort in to his work until his death flies in the face of what most art historians would tell you. He reached a point where he rarely produced work of any substance and instead simply produced work for the then ridiculous prices they could command. That is why you see more linocuts and the like. One work becomes 500 and he signs all 500 to make them "originals". This is a man who made even the smallest purchase by check because he knew it would never be cashed. The seller would instead sell the check to a collector.

I'd say this article has serious POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E040:3A00:5137:254B:9AF:C483 (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are major source and neutrality issues in this article. I have the impression, readin the talk-archive that there are two or three editors who have taken ownership of the article and force their unsupported views on Picasso, his life, and his work.--nandonaranja (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Intro

I think it is not relevant in the first sentence to say that he spent most of his adult life in France. I don't see any other articles stating that in the first sentence. The first sentence should be the name, the dates, where was he from, what he did, and what he is known for. The part about living in France could be stated later on.--nandonaranja (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I did the same change a few months ago for the same reason and it was reverted without a discussion if I remember it right.--Karljoos (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This fact is fundamentally important, as exemplified in the main body of text. Coldcreation (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It is true that it was important that he was in Paris at that time, but it is not relevant for who he is and what he is known for (for being an artist). And not all relevant information is worth of being in the first line - for example: I don't see any reference to cubism in the first paragraph...--Karljoos (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Coldcreation has a tendency to highlighting in the biographic articles he creates or heavily edit the fact that they lived in France. I am sorry, but I see a great deal of chauvinism here.--nandonaranja (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I would be careful not to label users here, because it can distract the discussion. I agree, though, that what you point out is interesting. I don't see the relevance of France in the first sentence of this many other articles by this user.--Karljoos (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Some examples:
"Beethoven was a German composer and pianist." And yes, he spent most of his life and Vienna and it is relevant for his career and his music language, but not for the first line.
"Luigi Boccherini was an Italian classical era composer and cellist whose music retained a courtly and galante style while he matured somewhat apart from the major European musical centers." He spent most of his life in Madrid, but it is not relevant for the reasons he is known.
"Frédéric Chopin was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of the Romantic era who wrote primarily for the solo piano." He lived most of his life playing in salons in Paris and it shaped his musical style, but, again, it is not stated in the first line.
I don't see a reason to having that in Picasso's article.--Karljoos (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Context is often given in the first sentence of an artist's biography; check Anthony van Dyck, Titian, Henry Fuseli, James Abbott McNeill Whistler, Jacopo Amigoni, Francesco de Mura, Amedeo Modigliani, Adolfo Farsari, Giovanni Boldini, Joan Brown, Constance Stokes, and many other artists (also writers such as Natalie Clifford Barney and composers such as Miklós Rózsa). Context may be of more importance for a visual artist than for a composer, as not only local artistic style but also local light and climate, flora and fauna, and the manners of the people are often unmistakable in visual works. You can tell when Gauguin was in Tahiti and when he was in Brittany by looking at the works he did; Stravinsky composed The Rite of Spring partly in Ukraine and partly in Switzerland, but is this apparent to the listener?
That Picasso made his headquarters in France is important and should be prominently stated, if not in the first sentence then in the second. For models of encyclopedic style, I checked Oxford Art Online and Encyclopædia Britannica. OAO leads off their Picasso bio with "Spanish painter, sculptor, draughtsman, printmaker, decorative artist and writer, active in France." Britannica starts with "Spanish expatriate painter, sculptor, printmaker, ceramicist, and stage designer, one of the greatest and most-influential artists of the 20th century and the creator (with Georges Braque) of Cubism." Both emphasize the artist's expatriate status. Ewulp (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is important that Picasso lived in France, but it is major secondary information if we consider major primary information where was he born, what he did, and what is he known for. I support moving it to later in the first paragraph.--nandonaranja (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems better to leave it as is. Being a leading figure in the world's artistic capital at the time is something Picasso is known for. WP:OPENPARA says "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources." The two examples given above show the importance reliable sources give to Picasso's expatriate status. Wishing to investigate further, I went to MoMA's website. Their first line on Picasso (click "Getty Record"): "Long-lived and very influential Spanish artist, active in France." (Mirroring ULAN's entry on Picasso.) The Tate website has this for a first sentence: "School of Paris painter, sculptor, etcher, lithographer, ceramist and designer, who has had enormous influence on 20th century art and worked in an unprecedented variety of styles." Our lead sentence follows reliable sources. Ewulp (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I support changing it. I am sure we could find reliable sources that do not have what we are discussing here in the lead sentence. Also, we are not here to copy other publications, but to create a communal one.Karljoos (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Please add three more words to Pablo Picasso's name because this is currently incorrect. These words are Martyr Patricio Clito before Ruiz y Picasso. This is a very important improvement. This information is from biography.yourdictionary.com/articles/facts-about-pablo-picasso.html. Thank you. HLC (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The full name in the article is Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso. Source: Pierre Daix, Georges Boudaille, Joan Rosselet, Picasso, 1900-1906: catalogue raisonné de l'oeuvre peint, Editions Ides et Calendes, 1988. Coldcreation (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Change 'payed' to 'paid'

There is no such word as 'payed' in English language. Would be nice to correct this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.215.246.56 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists.....

The sentence in the introduction of the article is completely wrong: Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics.

First of all, why are we ignoring the massive influence Cézanne had on 20th century art (especially on the cubists)? Secondly, why isn't George Braque, who was the theoretical force behind cubism, mentioned? And thirdly, why isn't non-figurativism - arguably the most important revolution of 20th century art - represented? The most important artists in that domain are the three great non-figurative artists at the beginning of the 20th century: Kandinsky, Mondrian & Malevich. Therefore, a sentence like 'Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists...' is completely gratuitous and simply not true.

UPDATE: The sources are also a bit flawed. One source is unavailable and two of them are newspaper reviews. Only one of them, Art in France, 1900-1940, is a decent study. C.Gesualdo (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about Picasso who along with Duchamp, and Matisse was regarded as the 3 artists who most defined and personified the revolutionary developments in 20th century art. <- (A well known fact) that began here -> [3]. This article is about Pablo Picasso - it's not an article about Cezanne, Braque, or non-figurative art - see Paul Cezanne, Cubism, Abstract art and Georges Braque...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this article is not about Cézanne, Braque or non-figurative art, but neither is it about Duchamp or Matisse, that's pretty much the point that I'm making. Apart from that, ranking Matisse and Duchamp with Picasso as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century is completely arbitrary and simply not true. Why is that sentence even there? The importance of Picasso is already mentioned in the first paragraph. It's now mentioned a second time, but in an erroneous context.
By the way, the source that you supplied did not literally say that they were the artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the 20th century. It rather said: Though Americans and Europeans were equally represented, it was the European avant-garde, particularly those from France, Marcel Duchamp, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Francis Picabia and Constantine Brancusi, most of them new – and shocking – to most Americans – that had everyone talking. That's something completely different.
Finally, the sources remain absolutely ridiculous. One review from The Guardian, a news item from the BBC and an advert from an entertainment site. I thought this was an encyclopedia? C.Gesualdo (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Correction: Georges Braque was not the theoretical force behind Cubism. Jean Metzinger and Albert Gleizes filled that role nicely. Also, you mention Kandinsky, Mondrian and Malevich, but fail to mention the equal importance (if not more) of Delaunay, Kupka, Survage and Picabia in the development of nonobjective art. By the way, Malevich was a latecomer to the scene, producing his first 'abstract' works in 1915 (3 or 4 year after the others mentioned above). What you write is as 'gratuitous' and incomplete as the sentence you wish to delete. Coldcreation (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Some lessons in reading would suit you, especially since you're pretty much confirming my point. Again, you can't take three artists and make a bold statement like they were 'the' artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the 20th century, that's complete nonsense. As I pointed out: more than three artists were important in the development of 20h century art. Kandinsky, Mondrian and Malevich were also highly influential, and indeed also artists like Delaunay and Kupka were influential. I don't want to add names to an erroneous sentence, I want to get rid of it. Why is this so problematic?
Secondly, just a correction, but Braque was in fact the theoretical force behind Cubism. When you're talking about Metzinger and Gleizes, you're probably referring to Du Cubisme. A work they wrote about cubism in 1912, at least three years after Picasso & Braque started painting in a cubist style. I'm not saying Metzinger and Gleizes did not contribute theoretically to Cubism, but the main theoretical force behind it was its co-pioneer: George Braque.
UPDATE: Not that it's relevant for this discussion, but I presume you got what you wrote about Metzinger from Wikipedia? In the article about him I read this: His early involvement in Cubism saw him both as an influential artist and principal theorist of the movement, which seems incorrect to me. And again, there's not a reliable source to support the claim. C.Gesualdo (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
And again, someone who confirms my point: indeed, more than those three artists were influential in the development of 20th century art. Let me emphasize, I'm not denying the fact that Matisse, Duchamp and Picasso were highly influential for 20th century art, but to make a statement as [PMD]... are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century is utter nonsense. And also, the sources at the end of the sentence do not support that claim in any way. So why are you people so in love with this sentence?
UPDATE: This have I thought good to mention: Abstract expressionism has many stylistic similarities to the Russian artists of the early 20th century such as Wassily Kandinsky. [from the Abstract Expressionism link you supplied]. And: Kenneth Noland working in Washington, DC., was also a pioneer of the color field movement in the late 1950s who used series as important formats for his paintings. Some of Noland's major series were called Targets, Chevrons and Stripes. Noland attended the experimental Black Mountain College and studied art in his home state of North Carolina. Noland studied with professor Ilya Bolotowsky who introduced him to Neo-plasticism and the work of Piet Mondrian. [from the Color Field link you supplied]]. Is it really so difficult to accept that this sentence is ridiculous? C.Gesualdo (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
And ultimately Noland became one of the most important colorists of the last half of the 20th century. He studied with Ilya Bolotowsky, Albers and was also initiated into abstract expressionism and color field painting along with Morris Louis by Helen Frankenthaler and Clement Greenberg...Modernist (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The point is that you don't have proper sources to support your claim. The sentence right now is completely ridiculous:

Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded [by whom?] as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics.

1. There are no proper scientific sources given, in fact, the given sources don't even support the claim this sentence is making.
2. You both pointed out in your comments that far more artists are responsible for 'the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century'.
3. Especially if you consider the opening decades of the 20th century, the most important influence on the fauvists and expressionists was Van Gogh, on the cubists Cézanne.
4. The non-figurative artists are completely neglected, so this sentence is incomplete to say the least. C.Gesualdo (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Lets be clear - the sentence is Not Ridiculous, in case you don't understand I said the sentence is not incorrect; in fact, it is correct. Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cezanne and other artists indeed are influential - wow; no one has contradicted that...Modernist (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The point of the Talk Page is a discussion. That means that you have to give arguments. I think I gave enough arguments to prove that this sentence is incorrect, replying with Lets be clear - the sentence is Not Ridiculous. Is even more ridiculous than the sentence we're talking about. C.Gesualdo (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
To be clear you clearly do not understand the word most it is used quite correctly as opposed to the word only which your so called argument implies...Modernist (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
What you don't do, is edit war and repeatedly revert to your preferred version. You are not a consensus of one. If you feel the discussion is at an impasse, you seek uninvolved editors to weigh in. Reverting to your version is disruptive, it's editing warring and it violates WP:OWN, not to mention possible WP:3RR. I've warned you on your talk page. Find consensus here, ask for more opinions, or drop the stick. freshacconci talk to me 16:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
How do I find consensus if the contributors to this discussion are a. not reading what I wrote, b. not providing arguments, and c. not providing accurate & scientific sources. What a lunacy. C.Gesualdo (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Start here. freshacconci talk to me 16:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Did that. No-one is responding. Someone is complaining. What the hell is going on here? Why do I have to make so much effort to change things like this? What a weird situation.... C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
On a Talk Page, you disagree with arguments. You haven't given any. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Or read this:
To be brief; it only takes common sense to realize that the sentence being ridiculed and objected to is completely correct and easy to understand especially in the context of an article about Pablo Picasso. Picasso is undeniably one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Early in his career he encountered through Gertrude Stein a relationship with one of the leading living artists in Paris - Henri Matisse who was 10 years his senior and a leading force behind Fauvism. Picasso and Matisse soon developed an artistic rivalry that they engaged in for decades that followed. When the Fauvist movement began to fade from the centerstage and artists like Georges Braque abandoned that movement for something new Cubism and it's spacial and it's textural implications predominated the avant-garde art scene. Picasso soon expanded his artistic vocabulary along with Braque by essentially inventing Cubism, modern collage, and constructed sculpture with the help of Julio Gonzalez. Picasso's work morphed during the Surrealist and Dada era; as he emerged as a titan of that time period. Marcel Duchamp slightly younger than Matisse and Picasso gave up painting and sculpture altogether in creating his readymades and declaring it's art if I say so....ultimately opening the door to Conceptualism. By the 1930s Picasso was the leading living avant-garde painter in the world. Matisse had moved to the South of France to continue his sensual, and radically decorative and articulate color paintings. The impact of Matisse begins to appear through the teaching of Hans Hofmann and the writing of Clement Greenberg. Hofmann who moved to the USA in 1933 becomes the most influential art teacher in New York from the 1930s through the 1950s. Hofmann and his knowledge of color and Matisse opens the door to artists like Mark Rothko, Clyfford Still, and Jackson Pollock; while Picasso has an enormous impact on Arshile Gorky, Willem de Kooning and Pollock as well. In essence Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp had an enormous impact on art in the late 20th century...Modernist (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To add:

The statement in the lead section of our article seems a pretty fair reflection of the artworld consensus, but you're correct in saying that the sources are inadequate. There may also be a problem of a synthesis of sources. Let's examine those sources:
The Tate citation says "Between them Matisse and Picasso originated many of the most significant developments of twentieth-century painting and sculpture". This source does not mention Duchamp.
Searle says "Picasso and Matisse have often been twinned as the presiding geniuses of 20th-century art". Duchamp is not mentioned.
Trachtman discusses Picasso and Matisse; no mention of Duchamp.
The three artists are mentioned in the same sentence in Art in France: 1900–1940 by Green (which I added about four years ago). Since then I have searched (admittedly not very diligently) for more sources; there are many like this and this that suggest that quite a few commentators rate Picasso and Duchamp as the most influential 20th-century artists.
In the BBC story, a poll of 500 art experts rates the three most influential works of modern art to be a Duchamp, a Picasso, and a Warhol—a different triad. More details about this poll are found in this story from The Independent. A story in The Telegraph reveals that the respondents were "the 500 most powerful people in the British art world"—it is not an international survey. I think the result would be about the same if it were, but we don't have that.
The last line of the intro section of Abraham Lincoln reads: "Lincoln has been consistently ranked both by scholars[5] and the public[6] as among the three greatest U.S. presidents." The ranking by scholars comes from a survey of 78 experts conducted in 2000; the cited report summarizes the results and mentions Lincoln's standing in similar surveys dating back to 1948. As far as I know we lack this sort of data for artists. Ewulp (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ewulp I already pointed out that the sources are highly problematic. Reviews of exhibitions (e.g. from The Tate) are not scientific and secondly, they're not very objective. Thirdly, I could probably find similar statements in reviews about artists like Kandinsky, Mondrian or Malevich. And that's really what I mean: it's very arbitrary. You wrote: The statement in the lead section of our article seems a pretty fair reflection of the art world consensus, but on what is that statement based? I agree of course that Matisse and Picasso were highly influential, but I already have my reserves about Duchamp (certainly if the sentence refers specifically to the 'opening decades of the 20th century'). Thus my point is, why specifically those three? Why not Matisse, Picasso and Kandinsky? Why not Matisse, Picasso, Kandinsky, Mondrian and Joan Miro? It's very arbitrary and I would like to see sources supporting the statement. Other sources such as The Guardian are not very relevant in my opinion. The same goes with the BBC and 'the BBC story'. Again: very arbitrary. Now Matisse is gone, and instead we have Warhol.... And this poll is also absolutely ridiculous: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/fountain-most-influential-piece-of-modern-art-673625.html. Since when is an encyclopedia concerned with what an unspecified group of people thinks? And no, the results would definitely not be the same in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands or Spain. In an article that wants to be encyclopedic I would like to see information based on scientific sources, not unspecified guesses. C.Gesualdo (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The combined populations of the six countries you name are less than that of the US, and we already know the results of the British poll; I suspect that in an international survey the local favorites would tend to cancel each other out, and the US with its larger population and concomitant larger number of art professionals would dominate the final selection. As I said, we don't know, which means it is speculation and not a source we can cite.
We don't usually base artists' biographies on scientific literature; our sources are mostly art historians and art critics, many of whom publish their writings in magazines and newspapers, as well as in books. I doubt that you will ever find a biography of Mondrian, Malevich, or Miro that calls him the dominant figure in European art of his time, as Oxford Art Online, a reliable source, does in the second sentence of their Picasso biography: "He dominated 20th-century European art and was central in the development of the image of the modern artist." Many sources describe Picasso this way. The sources cited here repeat fairly conventional opinions about the importance of Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp. This is from OAO's article on Duchamp: "Duchamp could be considered the single most important historical figure to affect the formation and direction of Pop art, Minimalism and conceptual art in the 1960s and 1970s. In 2004 a group of British art professionals declared Duchamp’s Fountain the ‘most influential modern art work of all time’. Conservative critics consider such an assertion preposterous, yet no one can deny the degree to which the concept of the ready-made has influenced the direction of contemporary art." Note that the poll is not taken as the final word on the subject; it is described for what it is, a poll of British art professionals.
I do not think the British poll is a good source for a sweeping judgment; that is why I contrasted it with the way the US presidents poll is used in the Lincoln article, where the survey methodology is explained in detail, and I noted that we don't seem to have any such data for artists. I have not contended that there is any compelling reason to mention Duchamp in the lead section of this article. Most articles about artists don't rank them against their contemporaries in such a categorical way. The lead section should summarize the article, but this article does not mention Duchamp except in the lead section. Per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Ewulp (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the interaction between Picasso and Duchamp needs to be discussed further in the article; especially regarding Duchamp's initial cubist painting and consequent move to the readymades; and Picasso's engagement with and use of found objects...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ewulp, can't you see that it already becomes problematic when you explain the influence of Duchamp. Yes, he was influential, but his importance came - as you pointed out correctly - much later in the 20th century; not in 'the opening decades of the 20th century'. Again, I never disputed that Picasso is a highly important 20th century artist. I could agree with what OAO says about Picasso. What OAO says about Duchamp is already more specific and more problematic: the single most important historical figure to affect the formation and direction of Pop art, Minimalism and conceptual art in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, I can make a similar statement about a number of artists, to begin with Kandinsky and Mondrian. The sentence in the introduction of the article is written as if it's an objective fact that specifically those three artists defined the opening decades of the 20th century. I think Kandinsky, Mondrian, Dali, Miro, Ernst and Breton could also be considered as artists who defined art in the opening decades of the 20th century. About Kandinsky OAO states: A central figure in the development of 20th-century art and specifically in the transition from representational to abstract art. About Mondrian the OAO states: Even in his lifetime he was regarded as the founder of the most modern art. About Max Ernst similar things can be said. Again, I completely fail to see why specifically those three artists - Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp - and no-one else are being called 'the' artists who most defined the opening decades of the 20th century. I could make a similar claim about a whole bunch of other artists! C.Gesualdo (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
C.Gesualdo: I have a feeling you will not accept advice on this but I will nonetheless offer some advice. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. Everyone who puts time in here does it on their free time for their own purposes. When an editor comes along who is combative, disruptive and insulting, it's off-putting. Regardless of the quality of your actual arguments, a belligerent attitude results in other editors not wishing to work with you. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia editors need to be handled with kid gloves. On the contrary, a healthy give-and-take moves things along. However, when someone wants something to happen, to change, and then proceeds to alienate other editors, frankly the desire to work with such an editor is diminished. You are clearly interested in the topic. You probably have something to offer to the project. But nobody will want to work with you when they feel they are being attacked, when someone is edit warring, is impatient with volunteers' time; it's just not worth it. It's better to just report the disruptive editor, get them blocked and move on. State your objections. Wait for the other volunteer editors to respond. There is no time limit. If you post a comment and there is no response for a few days, that does not mean you are free to do what you want. People have lives. This is a hobby. Make constructive suggestions. Use the talk page to draft a sentence that you feel is preferable. Allow other editors the time to respond, to make suggestions, to find the right sources. It's not a race. This is how Wikipedia works. If this isn't something you can do, this may not be the place for you. But give it a chance. Best. freshacconci talk to me 16:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@freshacconci, I thank you for your advice and I will accept it. I didn't mean to insult people and I apologize if I have. It's just that I sincerely disagree with the introduction, I simply think it's incorrect and I have a particular dislike for statements based on news media or strange polls; like the one from the BBC. It surprises me that it's so difficult to change it, that's why I was slightly annoyed. Again, I apologize if I insulted anyone. C.Gesualdo (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In the light of what freshacconci said, I will make the simple suggestion that the following sentence is wrong:

Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded [by whom?] as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics.

My point is: you can't possibly mention three specific artists of any time, but certainly not of the 20th century, who specifically are 'responsible for significant developments in painting'. These developments were far more complex and diverse. The best example I could give is non-figurativism, all three artists were not operating in that field. And yes, although they did influence non-figurativism, they were clearly not 'responsible for that significant development in painting'. The same goes for surrealism. Just my two cents... C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I gave everyone more than enough time to respond. Unfortunately no-one is bothered by this issue. And if even the 'Dispute resolution noticeboard' is closing this issue without going into it, then I shall proceed to edit whatever I please. At the end of the day, it's my word against the word of someone who's not providing arguments or sources. C.Gesualdo (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

DRN, at your request, moved to a moderated discussion phrase. You, as an involved party, were meant to participate. It was closed as abandoned because no one, including you, made any statements. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't need to make statements, because - as I already said at least 5 times - I'm not the party who has to supply proper sources. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

Hi there,

I would like to change this sentence: "Regarded as one of the greatest and most influential artists of the 20th century,"

To include 'and of all time": "Regarded as one of the greatest and most influential artists of the 20th century and of all time,"

The reason is when I went to Europe on travels, I saw a strong reverence for Picasso and his works in multiple countries. Unskathd (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

He was not regarded as one of the greatest and most influential artists of the e.g., 19th century, or 18th century, so that rules out "of all time". Coldcreation (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

there is a typo, "During the war Picasso was able to continue painting uninterrupted, unlike his French comrades. His paintings became more sombre and his life changed with dramatic consequences." this should be changed to "His paintings became more somber..." "somber is spelled wrong, the "e" and the "r" are switched also, I believe there is a missing comma after "war" it should be written as "During the war, Picasso was able to..." Doboer (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The spelling "sombre" is a British/American English spelling variation, and as this article is written using British English it accordingly uses British English spelling (I'm an American myself, so I too find it a bit jarring and it's difficult not to "correct" it). I'll let someone else work out the comma, so I'll leave this open. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Elsewhere on the page it was spelled somber; that's been fixed for consistency & a few commas added. Ewulp (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pablo Picasso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Charles Bargue Drawing Course

Can someone add this in? The Charles Bargue Drawing Course is something Picasso, as well as most other academically trained artists, studied. Picton1992 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pablo Picasso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Error/Typo

There's an error regarding Picasso's education. It lists his father in the education section... Queen Gaby (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"From the age of seven, Picasso received formal artistic training from his father in figure drawing and oil painting." Coldcreation (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Zervos

There needs to be a section discussing Zervos and the crFlamingoflorida (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, though much more could be said. Coldcreation (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

An elderly Pablo Picasso in a cloth cap, grinning at the camera
Picasso in 1962

I would suggest replacing the image of Picasso in the lead section with the one shown here. I believe the elderly Picasso is more recognizable to most people, as the one who famously wore that striped shirt. Both Biography.com and Britannica use photos of an elderly Picasso as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For historical reasons, the 1908 image of Picasso is immensely more interesting than the elder Picasso. The 1908 was taken one year after the artist completed the arguably most important painting in the history of art, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Also the 1908 image has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image on Wikimedia Commons within the scope: Pablo Picasso, young. Coldcreation (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, Picasso is easily just as recognizable to most people in the 1904 photo as the 1908 or the low resolution 1962 image.
  • Portrait photograph of Pablo Picasso, 1908
    Portrait photograph of Pablo Picasso, 1908
  • Picasso in 1904. Photograph by Ricard Canals
    Picasso in 1904. Photograph by Ricard Canals

Zervos

There needs to be a section discussing Zervos and the crFlamingoflorida (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, though much more could be said. Coldcreation (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

An elderly Pablo Picasso in a cloth cap, grinning at the camera
Picasso in 1962

I would suggest replacing the image of Picasso in the lead section with the one shown here. I believe the elderly Picasso is more recognizable to most people, as the one who famously wore that striped shirt. Both Biography.com and Britannica use photos of an elderly Picasso as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For historical reasons, the 1908 image of Picasso is immensely more interesting than the elder Picasso. The 1908 was taken one year after the artist completed the arguably most important painting in the history of art, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Also the 1908 image has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image on Wikimedia Commons within the scope: Pablo Picasso, young. Coldcreation (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, Picasso is easily just as recognizable to most people in the 1904 photo as the 1908 or the low resolution 1962 image.
  • Portrait photograph of Pablo Picasso, 1908
    Portrait photograph of Pablo Picasso, 1908
  • Picasso in 1904. Photograph by Ricard Canals
    Picasso in 1904. Photograph by Ricard Canals

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

i want to edit this 2A02:C7D:8AEE:F700:35B5:9D34:F3A5:F826 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

His baptismal name is not correct in 2 places. the correct name frpm pablopicasso.com is "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso" the missing words are at the end. Billplumer (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done:, the name is correct in the article. See Pierre Daix, et al, Picasso, 1900-1906: catalogue raisonné de l'oeuvre peint, Éditions Ides et Calendes, 1988. Coldcreation (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

It is simply to add two books to the bibliogreaphy:

Picasso Litógrafo y Militante, Miguel Orozco, 2016 Fundación Picasso. Málaga, WorldCat No. 952991448 Picasso lithographer and activist, Miguel Orozco, 2018, Academia.edu


}} Paco las Heras (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not usual to add non-English language books to a Bibliography section? Surely the English translation would be sufficient? But I'm not sure how notable Miguel Orozco is as an authority Picasso. Are there any secondary sources for this book? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"His mother was of one quarter Italian descent, from the territory of Genoa."

I this worth mentioning? If true, this means Picasso might have been one-eighth (12.5%) of Genoese descent, supposing his granny was 100% of Genoese descent and not partly something else, like most people. The article tells us nothing about any of Picasso's other grandparents and their places of origin. And "from the terr itory of Genoa" is an odd expression. Perhaps it just means "from the province of Genoa"? Can we remove the statement?METRANGOLO1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems trivial; I've gone ahead and removed it. Ewulp (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking into the topic further, since the name "Picasso" is not Spanish, it seems mention of the Italian origin of the artist would be of value to the article. I've gone ahead with an updated. Coldcreation (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Jacqueline Roque

Sorry you can't leave Jacqueline Roque, Picasso's second wife, out of his biography. What's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.244.115 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article 7 times. Coldcreation (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Let me edit Test13234546 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I would propose adding the following external link to this page:

Vincenc Kramář, Notes on Picasso's exhibition at the Thannhauser Gallery, 1913, a digital facsimile, with transcription and translation, of notes by Vincenc Kramář, on Picasso's 1913 exhibition at Heinrich Thannhauser's Moderne Galerie in Munich

It is an important digital resource provided by The Metropolitan Museum of Art's Leonard Lauder Research Center for Modern Art. WilliamDigiCol (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

On Picasso's Surnames

The text points out that he was named "Ruiz y Picasso" after his father and mother following Spanish law. This cannot be true, because at the time of his birth there was no such law in Spain, and wouldn't be for another 50-60 years or so. It was becoming an increasingly common custom, though.

I'll remove this reference from the text if no relevant source can be brought up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Coldcreation (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Opium etc usage ?

No info about using opium and link to cubism ? Any other info ? Why is this not presented here ? 

-  Picasso was heavy into morphine, opium, and hash by the time Cubism was becoming a thing, so while it was intentional, Picasso's decadent drug use helped fuel his unusual and bizarre visions which translated into masterpieces on the canvass.

https://medium.com/unusual-universe/10-moments-in-the-life-and-works-of-pablo-picasso-8e71a225fdc9 

-  But it was the elaborate rite of smoking opium that captivated Picasso and his circle, as did all things supposedly exotic, from Far Eastern art to African masks. The drug was readily available at a number of fumeries in Montmartre. A brothel run by Georges Braque’s mistress Paulette Philippi doubled as a private opium den on the Rue de Douai, behind the Moulin Rouge. Modigliani’s patron, Dr. Paul Alexandre, a firm believer in the power of opium and hashish to stimulate the imagination, ran another on the Rue du Delta. The most popular was the studio of George Pigeard, who’d given himself the fake title of “Baron,” and who is said to have turned Picasso on to the drug.

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-complicated-relationship-opium-art-20th-century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.115.9 (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

Picasso has been characterized as a misogynist by such critics as Cody Delistraty, Shannon Lea, and Priscilla Frank. He described women as “either goddesses or doormats” and “machines for suffering." [1] In 2017, over 1,100 people signed a petition demanding that the Metropolitan Museum of Art remove the painting “Thérèse Dreaming” from view on grounds that it sexualizes a prepubescent girl. [2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/art-politics/the_picasso_problem_why_we_shouldnt_separate_the_art_from_the_artists_misogyny-55120
  2. ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/museums-me-too-sexual-harassment-art_us_5a2ae382e4b0a290f0507176

What are you proposing the article/authors do with this information? Sevey13 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, I find people like to come to talk pages just to drop knowledge, and they forget to state what they want us to do with said information. But I assume he wanted an editor to add it. I think the community on such high profile pages can be really uptight about what is added to a page, that it scares off new editors. Eruditess (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal detail

John Richardson writes about the artist’s grandfather: «Next to nothing is known about this bizarre gentleman…beyond the fact that he married a plump young woman from the province of Málaga, Inés López Robles, rumored to be a Maranna (of Jewish descent).» . Worth mentioning in is bio? maybe--Iudaeorum (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Shopping list of job descriptions in lead sentence

I removed the shopping list of job descriptions from the lead, but was reverted because "there is only one Picasso".

As I said in my edit summary, we have a policy about this MOS:ROLEBIO: Avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. So... uh.... which part of that policy do you not get? Popcornfud (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  • As I said - There was only one Picasso....his extraordinary credentials and accomplishments make him almost unique in the 20th century and we include those well known and referenced accomplishments in the article..........and in the lede...What part of that don't you understand?...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Modernist. This is sillyness, to dampen down his range of talents because its untidy per MOS, is, frankly, bollocks, although I could live without poet and playwright. ps, agree with Popcornfud on most things, but not here. Ceoil (talk)
It's consistent with MOS:ART to list most notable media, and Picasso was unusually versatile & prolific. Agree about poet and playwright. Ewulp (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Guys, I don't think you're getting this. It doesn't "dampen down Picasso's talents" to say he was an artist, which is not exactly restrictive in definition. Instead, I'm saying the first sentence needs to do a different job - concisely summarise the subject - before the lead goes into more detail. MOS:ART actually backs me up:
In general it is best and safest to use "artist" in the lead of a biography; very many artists were not just painters (many articles are currently defective in this respect). If the artist did significant work in several media, that should be indicated, as, for example:
Edgar Degas (19 July 1834 – 27 September 1917), born Hilaire-Germain-Edgar Degas, was a French artist, who worked in painting, sculpture, printmaking and drawing.
Do you see how that's a much more elegant approach? I'm not saying we shouldn't cover the media he used in the lead, I'm saying we shouldn't list them out like job descriptions, which weigh down the first sentence.
The article lead now violates MOS:ART and MOS:ROLEBIO and as far as I can see the reason is basically "Picasso was soooo special". Popcornfud (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with the formulation used on the Degas lead, though I think your last statement is unkind, unfair, and off-puttingly arrogant, especially considering you are essentially driving by. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
How do we all feel about this for a lead sentence?
Pablo Ruiz Picasso[a][b] (25 October 1881 – 8 April 1973) was a Spanish artist who worked in painting, printmaking, sculpture and ceramics.
This omits the "who spent most of his adult life in France", which I think that could be easily integrated into the rest of the lead. I am presuming that we think his media is more defining to the subject for the lead sentence than the France thing. Alternatively if we think the nationality is more important we could go with:
Pablo Ruiz Picasso[a][b] (25 October 1881 – 8 April 1973) was a Spanish artist who spent most of his adult life in France.
and then immediately cover the range of media in the next sentence.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not merely slavishly following policies here - I agree with them and think they make sentences more readable, break down ideas into manageable chunks, and fight the urge overload lead sentences with detail. Popcornfud (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Consider: WP:IAR consider: WP:UCS consider: WP:CONSENSUS and stop wasting our time!!! As I said before - There was only one Picasso....his extraordinary credentials and accomplishments make him almost unique in the 20th century and we include those well known and referenced accomplishments in the article..........and in the lede...What part of that don't you understand?...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
      Modernist, I am not proposing we remove his accomplishments from the lead. You're not responding to anything I'm saying. Popcornfud (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment' Modernist just to note that Popcornfud and I have worked successfully in the past on a number of areas, so there is unquestioned good faith here. Popcornfud, have known Modernist for some 15 years, and have worked extensively with him. He knows his stuff, and then some. To all - for the life of me, cant see whats wrong with "was a Spanish painter, sculptor, printmaker and ceramicist who spent most of his adult life in France." Suggest we leave it open for a few days to see other's comments. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The advice at MOS:ART – "In general it is best and safest to use "artist" in the lead of a biography; very many artists were not just painters (many articles are currently defective in this respect)" – is I think intended to discourage the kind of description seen in the lead of Jean-François Millet, which slights his important work as a printmaker. The MOS doesn't mandate calling him "artist", it just recommends we don't identify everyone as "painter". In Picasso's case, a little overload gives a better sense of one of the most protean artists, and it's still perfectly readable; the lead closely resembles that of El Lissitzky, which passed FA review so it can't be that bad. If anything, I'd add theatre designer. Ewulp (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Having thought on this, have re added "theater designer". I know where the original edit that sparked discussion is coming from, for eg would be loath to call Francis Bacon "a painter and designer of furniture and rugs", for eg, while even calling Bowie a musician and actor in a lead sentence also seems off to me. However, I think Picasso is probably an exception as he excelled in a significant way in a number of visual art fields. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that describing someone who "excelled in a number of visual art fields" as an artist would be completely appropriate, no? Concise and accurate. Define him as an artist, then go into detail - rather than overloading the lead with no fewer than five roles.
I also still fail to see how the policies I have cited fail to apply the situation in this article... more or less exactly. But I know the consensus is against me here. Guess Picasso is sooo special after all! Oh well. Popcornfud (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe who "excelled in a number of visual art fields" has more impact. LEving this open to others to comment. While we are mulling, not sure "who spent most of his adult life in France", is best for the lead sentence. Anyway re artist etc, am not a big policy guy in general, or at least recognise its trumped by ignore all rules, which obv should be used in exceptional circumstances, which I think this is one. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure we need the French thing in the lead sentence either, as I said above. And yes sometimes rules definitely need to be ignored, but I think this one still applies and would improve the article, I'm not just slavishly endorsing it. Popcornfud (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You are right to question, when challenging lead sentences over stating or confusing artistic achievements you will be 99.9% right. To go back to an earlier eg, would bowie have gotten acting gigs if he wasn't a world famous rock star. So Bacon did a few rugs as a struggling young man...so what. IOWs, yes Picasso *is* sooooo special :) Anyway would prefer if mention of his works came before the movements he "helped" co-found; in reality and can be corrected here, but I always thought his work largely lead to modern art taking a few twists and turns, rather than the other way around. ps, I'm more of a 15th century person, not willing to edit further until the 20th art editors give views. You are certainly a better writer than I am, so would appreciate of you followed consensus as it developed here, and help implement (in as few words as possible). Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pablo_Picasso/Archive_3&oldid=1138480985"