I don’t mean to go too back to basics but to understand Adam Gopnik’s article on Pablo Picasso, I think it is useful to first start off by understanding a couple of key definitions. A “caricature” is defined as “the indigenous antimimetic representational strategy available within the western tradition” (Gopnik 371). (In lamens terms think of the caricature portrait you posed for as a child at Disneyland circa 1995). As for “primitivism” I personally think of it as something that is depicted as simple and unsophisticated through the means of an artistic from.

           

As we inspect the age of the avante-garde there is a recurring question: Why did modern art create such a stir among the bourgeoisie? Because it challenged common sense. In his article High and Low: Caricature, Primitivism, and the Cubist Portrait, Adam Gopnik introduces what he believes to be the two pillars of Cubism: the idealist and abstract. He argues that Picasso’s use of primitive forms developed from the introduction of the caricature into the “field of vanguard art” (372). He further declares that Picasso’s “revolution” in “portraiture” is best understood “as the resolution of a psychomachia between sketchbook and easel” (372). …And that’s where Gopnik loses me for the first time in his article. His vocabulary is impressive yet this particular message is unclear. Obviously Picasso was a little psycho (give me an artist who wasn’t) and projected his mind onto his art…so what’s the point? Perhaps we can find out…

Picasso’s early caricatures in his sketchbooks seem to produce a primitive-like effect. (What do I mean by that? Look at the figures in the photo next door and note the “hollow-eyed, emaciated, tonal heads” [372])

These figures tell us why Picasso is a founding father of modernity; his ability to reinvent even the most simple of faces. Gopnik then goes on to explain the reason why humans are attracted to caricatures is because they mirror the “internal structure of our mental representation” (373). Perhaps our vision of reality is less stable than we think (once again bringing us back to the root of modern art’s success: destabilizing what is perceived as reality). He proceeds by pointing out that when we envision a being we see them as caricatures, not portraits. (Does this mean we envision our childhood dog as Snoopy and the skunk of Isla Vista as Pepe Le Pew? I can see it!) But riddle me this, why don’t we mistake Bug’s Bunny for a real rabbit? Ah! It’s because we are humans! We know better than that! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ifIQNwXBE) Gopnik points out that our own “mind has knowledge about its own perceptual functioning” (373). Lucky for us, we pick up on exaggerations and simplifications, which is why we can enjoy such caricatures.

But let’s look at something we don’t enjoy (just for kicks and giggles). Two words: Gertrude Stein. As discussed in lecture and in Tamar Garb’s chapter on “Sex and Spectatorship with Gertrude and Pablo” audiences have struggled with this portrait for a number of reasons.

Doesn’t she have any emotion?! Isn’t she supposed to be a feminine creature?! Here we go again, the minute we are presented with the unknown all hell break’s loose and Picasso is cued in. From Gipnok’s persepctive, Stein’s portrait is an example of primtivism, where her “physiogomic identification” is distorted (374). I buy this reasoning, I mean look at her eyes and brow line...can you say oversized and intense? I’m sure you’ve all been wondering where Gopnik loses me for a second time in his article, well here we go! He states that Stein’s physiogomic features are similar to many characters in pritimitve art and are derived from the “western tradition” of caricature (374). Okay, I can roll with that. But he then proceeds to state that “the move from low to high, the victory of the notebook over the easel, is accomplished through primitivism” which makes zero sense to me (374). Is he saying primtivism’s success is seen in it’s transition to high art? Enlighten me fellow 119E students!

Gipnok last hints that Picasso’s most “primitive period” was between 1906-1909 and makes sure to note that Picasso isn’t necessarily the first to explore primtivism but is definitely an important player during this period. I think the whole idea of a “primtive period” is a valid topic for discussion. Do we agree that Stein’s portrait is Picasso’s first dabble with primtivism? I do. I think her strong features exaggerate her masculinity to a point where we can see the beginnings of caricaturism (and according to Gipnok [and now myself] we know: "caricuturism" leads to primitivism!). If people disagree, what do you think is Picasso’s first introduction of primitivism? Can you pin-point a single portrait? Overall, I agree with Gipnok regarding the notion that we must see primtivism as a style change, much like Romanticism or Cubism.

I leave my classmates with a question, was Picasso deliberate? What I mean by that is: did he see the path from caricature to “vanguard portraiture by way of primtivism” (374)? Gipnok says yes and I do too! The portrait of Andre Salmon is “unmistakibly and purposefully assimilating the vocabulary of primitive and archaic art to the grammar of caricature” which can be seen in the jutting transformation of Andre Salmon’s chin (375). The proof is in the jaw.

This article shows that caricatures are the home base for Picasso’s primtive form. As much as I wish High and Low: Carciture, Primtivism and the Cubist Portrait was more about primtivism rather than caricature, I find this article to be a great introduction to Picasso’s primitive influences. Gold star. Standing ovation. You get the jist. Thanks, Gopnik. Hankard, out.

-Alexa Hankard

Works Cited:
Gopnik, Adam. "High and Low: Caricature, Primitivism, and the Cubist Portrait." Art Journal 43.4 (1983): 371-76. JSTOR. College Art Association. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/776736>.

Picasso, Pablo. Various Sketches. 1899. Museo Picasso, Barcelona. (figure 1)
Picasso, Pablo. Gertrude Stein. 1906. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (figure 2)
Picasso, Pablo. Portraits of Andre Salmon. 1907. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (figure 3)