Breaking rules....

I'm not a fan of art from the Renaissance or Baroque periods. Instead, I prefer the Romantic and Impressionist periods. I don't like it when I can't use my imagination and I feel that it is better put to use by the mystery and intrigue of the later.

My tastes have been met with criticism. "Where is the skill?" I have been asked. "I could draw that" or "my child could do a better job" are also popular comments.

I have been quick to come to the defence of my art but have not really known what to say when it came to even more abstract art like that done by Picasso or Warhol. Until now.

I had the pleasure of visiting Picasso's gallery in Barcelona. It was a fantastic collection of work from the beginning of his study (yes, he studied!) to the end of his career and included sketches that were probably never meant to be public. I also recently saw even more of Picasso's art while in New York. I was blown away.

I think many people associate Picasso with his later work. Not known by many (including myself) is the fact that this boy could paint. He did the sketches and was traditionally educated. And he was good. So what happened?

My theory is that Picasso got bored.

I tried to find examples on the internet but none could be found.

Take my word, instead, that while sketching in art class and drawing as he was "supposed to" he would doodle. Most doodles included goats or cartoon flowers randomly placed somewhere on his sketch pad.

Did he not want to be there? Afterall, his father was a painter and his teacher. Did his father see his talent and encourage him to continue? Was Picasso just going through the motions? Did he really just want to jump out the window?

Then Picasso went to Paris.

He didn't have money and he developed a taste for the "forbidden." Of course this translated to his work.

Looking at this one (mild) example, I wonder if Picasso ever meant for these doodles to become public. Did he care? Apparently during extreme periods of poverty he burned his art to keep warm. Was he just so creative that he didn't think twice about it? Did he paint like some people write? At least he still had all of his ears.

There is a marked progression in Picasso's work from his traditional training to what is now referred to as Cubism.

Genres change and develop. Like building blocks, each period uses what was good from the period before and changes just enough to make it distinctive. If rules were broken a new way would never be recognized.

So was it easy? Definitely not. Picasso spent just as much time on his later works as he did his earlier works. Did he get the recognition he deserved? Probably not, although he did enjoy more wealth than other artists.

The moral? Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Just because you're told to do it doesn't mean you always should.

If rules were always followed Picasso would never have created.