Comparing Picasso and Francis Rose Portraits of Gertrude Stein
This paper compares two painted portraits of Gertrude Stein — one by Pablo Picasso and one by Sir Francis Rose — examining how each artist's style, technique, and relationship to the modernist avant-garde shaped their representation of the celebrated arts patron. The analysis draws on critical frameworks from Clement Greenberg's essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" and Paul Johnson's assessments of Picasso to argue that, while Rose's portrait is more abstractly symbolic, Picasso's is ultimately the more accomplished likeness. The paper also considers what each portrait reveals about Stein's dual identity as a champion of modernist experimentation and a figure with deep traditional and religious sympathies.
- Introduction: Two Portraits of One Subject: Framing comparison of Rose and Picasso portraits
- Francis Rose's Abstract and Symbolic Portrait: Rose's avant-garde, symbolic depiction of Stein
- Pablo Picasso's Classical Representation: Picasso's reflective, representative portrait of Stein
- Picasso's Stein vs. Rose's Stein: A Comparative Assessment: Evaluating which portrait better captures Stein
- Stein's Dual Identity in Both Portraits: Stein's modernist and traditional Catholic tensions
- Conclusion: Both portraits flatter Stein in complementary ways
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its visual analysis in well-chosen critical sources — Greenberg's theory of the avant-garde and Johnson's biographical account of Picasso — giving art-historical weight to observations that might otherwise remain impressionistic.
- The comparison is organized thematically as well as by artist, allowing the argument to build toward a judgment rather than simply alternating descriptions.
- The inclusion of a cultural detail (Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris) effectively grounds the reader in Stein's broader cultural significance without derailing the analytical focus.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative visual analysis supported by secondary criticism. Rather than describing each portrait in isolation, the author uses each artist's known working method and aesthetic philosophy to contextualize what the portrait reveals — and conceals — about the subject. This moves the analysis from mere description to interpretation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction that inverts reader expectations (Rose, not Picasso, is the more abstract painter). It then devotes a section to each artist before moving into comparative evaluation and a thematic section on Stein's dual identity. A brief conclusion synthesizes both portraits in terms of what Stein would have valued in each. The structure is clean and logical for an undergraduate-level art analysis essay.
Introduction: Two Portraits of One Subject
The two portraits of Gertrude Stein — one by Sir Francis Rose and one by Pablo Picasso — are as different as any two portraits of the same subject might be. While one might suspect it to be Picasso whose rendition of the author, critic, poet, and arts promoter is the more opaque and abstract, it is actually Rose whose portrait represents Stein as a kind of abstraction. Picasso's painting thoroughly resembles Stein and captures her quite elegantly, as is even demonstrated in the Woody Allen film Midnight in Paris, where it hangs on the wall above Stein's throne as she critiques Picasso's other works.
This paper compares and contrasts the two portraits by Rose and Picasso, showing how both attempt to illuminate the character of this celebrated friend of artists.
Francis Rose's Abstract and Symbolic Portrait
The character of Rose's portrait may be considered in the light of what he himself thought of his style: "a new medium of artistic expression…half abstract and half symbolic" (Art: Blossoming Career, 1949). Clearly all of that, Rose was a painter who appealed to Stein and to few others — to Stein perhaps because of his devotion to both Picasso and Catholicism, a combination that would have appealed to her own sensibilities and prejudices. After all, Picasso was, in a sense, her protégé. As for the great English Catholic author Evelyn Waugh, Picasso was a fraud, and he reportedly ended each of his letters heaping scorn upon the artist.
Rose's art was experimental, and this is clearly visible in his portrait of his patron. Symbolic it must certainly be considered: Stein appears as a kind of bug-eyed insect in the robes of an ancient figure. The style is nonetheless flattering, presenting Stein as someone similar to the allegorical figure who holds the scales of justice — an emblem of artistic perception, recognizing the good and discerning the bad.
The portrait by Rose is also reflective of its time. Its abstract representations are avant-garde and modern, yet its subject remains discernible. As Clement Greenberg stated, "It has been in search of the absolute that the avant-garde has arrived at 'abstract' or 'nonobjective' art… The avant-garde poet or artist tries in effect to imitate God by creating something valid solely on its own terms, in the way nature itself is valid…" (p. 531). Such is precisely where Rose would rank.
Pablo Picasso's Classical Representation
Picasso would also rank among the avant-garde; nonetheless, his portrait of Stein is far more classical than Rose's. Then again, Picasso was the more accomplished artist — despite the fact that he rarely labored over any single piece of work. As Paul Johnson writes of Picasso, he "was perhaps the most restless, experimental, and productive artist who ever lived. But everything had to be done at top speed. He was incapable of lavishing care, time, or sustained effort on a work of art" (p. 250). At this point in his career, however, Picasso could represent Stein quite well. The style is neither fully abstract nor entirely avant-garde: it is reflective, slightly off-kilter, but encompassing of the subject and her character.
While, as Johnson notes, Picasso's "distorted paintings of women are closely linked to the pleasure he got from hurting them, both physically and in other ways" (p. 256), none of that is depicted in his portrait of Stein. The painting is respectful, to say the least, and demonstrates what Picasso was capable of in terms of representative artwork. There is no evidence that Picasso "ruled over" Stein — quite the contrary. From the grandeur of her character as rendered in the portrait, one might assume that Stein, in fact, ruled over Picasso.
Conclusion
In either case, both artists attempt to represent their patron in the most favorable light. Picasso's portrait is surprisingly the most representative — which would have delighted Stein, for his other works depicting women are far less so. Yet Rose's abstraction would also have delighted her, for she wanted nothing more than to be seen as one who truly "understood" art and could admire it in all its modernity, while still retaining her religious and traditional roots. Together, the two portraits offer a composite image of Gertrude Stein that neither artist could have achieved alone.
Bibliography
"Art: Blossoming Career." Times. 1949. Web. 23 June 2011.
Greenberg, C. "Avant-Garde and Kitsch." Partisan Review 6.5, 1939: 34–49.
Johnson, P. Creators. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.