Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
I don't think where people are artistically is quite as mysterious or indefinable as you suggest. My problem is that this unrealised and derivative work is published and celebrated as anything other than pastiche, which is insulting to anyone who is even vaguely well-read photographically. What is strange is how otherwise switched on people continue to create what is essentially naive art.
When Picasso branched out to doing ceramics in 1947, how would you have reacted? I suspect a little like you sound above. Picasso brought to a medium (some don't even consider art) his style. Are you that person who doesn't think ceramics can be art because others already have made art in that medium and we have moved on ( eg we already have say raku, why should Picasso touch a "artistically dead medium")?

I suggest, Picasso, an accomplished artist in '47, would have been in the "transform" part of his paintings but at the same time be in the learning phase in regard to the ceramics in '47

And therefore I find it not right to judge anyone. Picasso, if he was any less famous or impressionable, could have stopped his expressions in ceramics should he have listened to someone like you.