Simple question, obviously complex answer. The question is not new: separate the man and the artist or the work and the author. What is newer is the place taken by this question, by these issues, in the public debate, beyond the specific case of Picasso.
For Eric de Chassey, ( Director General of the Institute of Art History INHA) “there is both a way of thinking about the question of the author as a central question, after a whole moment which freed us from it, until Roland Barthes of course (even if it is more complicated than what we said in general) and a way of putting forward identity politics that say that the identity of the person who does is more important than the result that is made of it. For me, it's nothing other than a form of reaction, and even a form of backtracking which is extremely worrying, which takes place in the trappings of a progressive version and which moreover accompanies a movement of questioning which is deeply legitimate, and which is practiced by the history of art in an insufficient way but for a long time.
For Laure Murat, (Distinguished Professor in the Department of European Languages and Transcultural Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.)" the space of the representation is not the biography; it is obvious but which must be remembered".* However, "the autonomy of the work of art was taken as pretext in order to pass on things which undoubtedly today, in our contemporary eyes - and that it is absolutely necessary to take this into account - are unacceptable".
Concerning Picasso, it is clear that in ten years the tone used in articles or programs talking about him has evolved a lot, especially when it comes to his relationship to women. Laure Murat explains: "the history of art, cinema, literature was made by men, in a form of let's say rape culture, of representation of rape which was perfectly accepted (the criminalization of rape is relatively recent) therefore necessarily everyone is in this same boat. Feminist criticism is not new but was not widely heard. There, of course, Metoo shook all that, as well as post-colonial studies, I think that's extremely important. What interests me is to know why rape has been favored for so long? Why did art critics and all art historians not raise these questions before?
Today, other voices are also emerging and resonating: for example, Australian comedian and author (a graduate in art history) Hannah Gadsby, who, in her show "Nanette" (broadcast on Netflix in 2018) says of Picasso that he suffered from a " mental illness, misogyny" and adds: " If you don't believe me, here is a quote from Pique-Assiette himself: 'As soon as I leave a woman I should burn her. By destroying the woman, we destroy the past that she represents.' Nice guy !!.
The greatest artist of the 20th century. Separating the man from the work, I hear that all the time. It's the art that counts, not the artist. Alright we'll try. How about removing Picasso's name from his paintings to see how much it would be worth at auction? What a mess! nobody has a circular Lego nude, they have a Picasso! Sorry."
For Eric de Chassey , " these questions are legitimate and to have ignored them is a problem. But the relationship that is then expressed with regard to people and works seems to me extremely simplistic. (...) What would seem to me interesting to denounce this is why we all obey these values which are market values, from the market (which is logical) to the criticism and the criticism which is expressed in the press - which is in general extraordinarily attached to this question of the market value of the works and calls it very little into question - and even up to the museum, which should escape this market sphere."
From Radio France Culture.
© Fine Art Expertises LLC
Comments