What is clear is that this book differs in approach to cubism from the work by Karmel. Staller has amassed a wide range of information and contextual data, which includes many aspects of culture that could be seen as an inspiration and an impetus towards cubism. Karmel on the other hand has a very different perspective on the origins of cubism. In this work we encounter the artist not as impulsive and absorbed in social and cultural influences but rather as someone who is separate and objective and who searches consciously for balance and integration in the formation and creation of his work. Essentially, what Staller suggests is the Picasso was more immersed in his social and cultural context and that cubism emerges as a result of subconscious and innate motivations and drives, compared to the more objective and rational approach in the work by Karmel. I would tend to agree with the view put forward by Staller. This perspective seems to be more appropriate in terms of the process of art and particularly with regard to the way that cubism made use of diverse sources and influences.

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...

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.
Bibliography

Karmel, Pepe. Picasso and the Invention of Cubism. China: Yale University

Press, 2003.

Natasha Staller Offers a New Look at Picasso, His Artistic Imagination and Cubism. April 10, 2009. http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Staller_Natasha_206165900.aspx

Picasso, Braque and Early Film in Cubism. New York Times. April 10, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/arts/design/15kenn.html?pagewanted=print

Picasso: Style and Meaning. (Book Review) April 10, 2009.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-4782584_ITM

Staller, Natasha. A Sum of Destructions: Picasso's Cultures and the Creation

of Cubism. Yale University Press, 2001

Walther I. Pablo Picasso. Cologne: Taschen, 1986.