Picasso's unconscious response to cubism's artistic and cultural origins

Picasso, Cubism, Culture

Picasso, Cubism and culture

The "invention" or creation of cubism has elicited a huge library of criticism and studies attempting to explain this artistic phenomenon that is largely associated with the works of Picasso and Braque. While there is no definitive definition of cubism, a working definition that can be applied is simply that cubism is a new artistic mode or method of perceiving reality. As one writer in the subject states, Picasso initiated a "revolt" against Western representation in art and developed knew methods of "… inventing truth that enables him to break old laws…" ( Walther 33).

At the outset I feel that it is important to make the distinction between the artistic process and the analysis of art from the perspective of the critic. In contradistinction to many of the works on Cubism, in my opinion the artist does not consciously invent and work out an empirical scheme to deal with an artistic problem. In my view an artist like Picasso responds. His work is a response to the needs that he intuitively feels in the artistic as well as social and cultural environment that surrounds him. This is the view that contradicts to a certain extent the thesis of Karmel's work on cubism.

In other words, the stance that I have taken in response to the various readings on cubism is that, in the first instance, the artist works and creates in relation to the dictates and process of art and to the social and cultural milieu in which he or she lives. Stated in another way, cubism emerged, not as critics like Karmel imply as an idea that was consciously formulated and worked on, but rather as a natural and largely unconscious process in the mind of the artist. From this perspective we could suggest that Picasso unconsciously responded to what was needed in the development of his art and to what he felt was lacking in representational painting and sculpture. Therefore a central response to these readings is that I believe that the origins of Cubism lie more in an unconscious or even preconscious mode of thought rather than in a conscious and objective thinking about the direction of art.

The two works that will be considered in this discussion and which will from the background to the analysis of cubism are Picasso and the Invention of Cubism by Karmel ( 2003) and a Sum of Destructions: Picasso's Cultures and the Creation of Cubism ( 2001) by Natasha Staller.

2. Views on Cubism

2.1. Karmel

Karmel in Picasso and the Invention of Cubism (2003) takes the general view that Picasso consciously developed a new artistic language in an attempt to break the hold of representational thinking on art. The author clearly states the importance of the intentional creation of a formal artistic language that was to become known as cubism.

….great variety of meanings?

philosophical, political or biographical?

can be discovered in Cubist paintings and sculptures.

But, for the most part, these meanings might equally well have been communicated in some other, more conventional way. The truly new and distinctive feature of Cubism is its formal language.

(Karmel, 2003, p. viii)

The development of a new 'formal language" is an important aspect and one which few can disagree with. This extensive and enlightening work goes on to describe the elements, as Karmel determines them, of this new formal language. For example, he notes Picasso's attempt to depict the body with more depth and solidity and the way in which the model of stage space is used to free art from conventional perspective. In other words, the development of the new language that we call cubism was also the creation of a new artistic space.

Karmel also isolates a number of 'key ideas' that are essential to the understanding of cubism. These include the empiricist theory of perception and the view that the work of art should not imitate reality but "…should offer an 'equivalent' for experience, expressed in the language of visual symbols" (Karmel, 2003, p. 2). The empirical perception refers to the breakdown of art and painting into abstract elements.

These are all very useful theoretical and analytical tools which can be used to explore the development of cubism in both Picasso and Braque. However, the main problem that I have with this very formal perception of cubism is that it implies a conscious and objectivist approach on the part of the artist. Karmel makes these theoretical assumptions largely on the basis of a comparison of the drawing that Picasso made, which he uses to imply a conscious progression in the artists work. However he does not address the question of the transition between the sketches and the finished paintings. He also divides his understanding of cubism into a number of related section; namely, "Ideas," "Spaces," "Bodies," and "Signs." However this analysis of cubism is problematic. As one critic has noted; "One of the larger questions that will eventually need to be raised in relation to the text is whether it in fact makes sense to carve things up in this way." (Picasso: Style and Meaning)

Another related aspect is that Karmel does not allow for ambiguity and indeterminacy in the creation of Picasso's cubistic works but treats the development of cubism as a conceptual process that has a linear progression of development. "Ambivalence has no place in his book. We hear neither of regret or hesitation on Picasso's part nor of the ambiguous, "reversible" structures that other scholars have seen as integral to the artist's Cubism." (Picasso: Style and Meaning) This criticism is also related to the artistic process, which is most often not linear and consecutive but is usually discursive and based on intuition feeling. In Karmel's view the artist rationally and intellectually discovers problems and then searches for solution to these problems. This would seem to deny the artistic process which includes ambiguity and chance, and which are essential elements of the style of cubism.

While Karmel's analysis certainly adds to the understanding of cubism it also tends to distort to a certain extent the very nature of cubism. Cubism is a form of art that emerged as a reaction as well to the time in which Picasso lived. It must be remembered that the reaction against representation was also part of a larger reaction to a society that was in decline and a time in which artists and writers were questioning society ands culture. This interrogation of conventional values was to increase after the devastating First World War. The impact and influence of culture and environment is explored in the second reference work under discussion. In essence the underlying impetus behind cubism was the search for new realities and modes of expression in a world that was increasingly decadent and morally suspect.

3. Summation and conclusion

Both these works provide important contributions to the understanding of cubism. However, as has already been suggested, while these works are insightful they sometimes fail to address a number of salient factors and issues. On the one hand Karmel presents a view of Picasso and cubism that emphasizes a very consistent, unambiguous and objective view. On the other hand the work by Staller is much more discursive and provides little in terms of theoretical and formal analysis. Possibly the best approach to cubism lies in a combination of these two perspectives or views.

Reading these two studies has led me to draw some of my own conclusions about cubism. The most important aspect is that, in the first place, one has to define and understand the artistic process itself before one can enter into a debate about the origins of cubism. This refers to the debate about whether art is mainly conscious or subconscious. While art is of course a combination of both the conscious and subconscious minds the artist must make more use of his subconscious facilities than is the case in many other professions or activities. The reason for this is that the true artist is endeavoring to understand and portray the true nature of reality and human being that he or she perceives to exist beneath the appearance of everyday reality. In the search for what is essentially unknown or not yet seen the artist has to continually develop methods and modes of expression that can enable this reality to be revealed. The artist has often to lose his objective and rational self and immerse himself in the process of art to discover these new methods and techniques. I would suggest that this is the case with Picasso and Braque and that the origins of cubism lie in the immersion in life and culture and that the creation of the cubistic techniques and style is closely linked to the subconscious artistic process. This would tend to go against the objective and rational approach suggested by Karmel and is more in line with the study by Staller.