Practice 4-1: Picasso

When I saw Picasso's painting "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" the first thing that really popped out to me was all the different faces of the women. They are all very unique and not realistic, they look like a face that someone with less experience would paint. This confused me because Picasso is very talented and I feel like he could've painted in general a lot better than what he did. I believe that good art is something that takes talent and I don't see much talent in this painting. It doesn't use correct perspective and although to some it may look more appealing, I don't see it as being "good" art. After looking at his other painting "science and charity" (which looks a lot more realistic using real angles and perspective) I was really blown away at how good this painting was. In my opinion it is better than "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" because it shows a lot more talent and skill. The amount of detail and emotion that is going on in the scene is very clear. While in his painting, "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" the viewer has to make his own opinion on what he/she sees, it's not clear. I believe good art should show clear meaning and not meant to be unclear what the art piece is about. In some cases it's okay to break the rules in art, and I'm not saying that either one of Picasso's pieces are not art, they both are a form of art one is conventional realism and one is more abstract and not following all the rules of painting. I believe that in writing should always be conventional when you're writing a research paper or following a specific outline because without these outlines there would be no similarity between them, it would be a lot harder to grade or compare them with one another if they don't even use the same writing style.