[Juan Martinez]

Well, I must admit that I am one of those who has always been quick to downplay Picasso's drawing abilities. I had never seen the images presented here, before. However, I'm still a little skeptical in some ways. First, regarding the portrait of a fisherman, I find it very hard to believe that it was done by the hand of a 14-year old. Yet, it is thus attributed, is it not? My guess is that it was not a portrait from life, but rather, a copy. In either case, it was surely done under the guidance of a competant teacher, such as Picasso's father was. Even so, that doesn't diminish its fine execution.

The reason I think it was a copy is three-fold. First, that was the normal method for training young people in those days. I cannot remember seeing a work from a youngster that was as good as that, except ones that were master copies. Even Millais--who was the youngest graduate of the Royal Academy at age 16--did not do better work than that at that age. Secondly, the title it is given is either a nickname for a very tall fellow (taken from the long beards found on some bearded wheat varieties) or it is a family name. If it were the latter, then I find it unusual that there is no honourific or first name along with it. Therefore, I think it is a nickname. That simply makes me think that no-one knew exactly who it was of, despite what the historians say. Third, many early works by artists, particularly modern ones, are incorrectly attributed as being something they are not. That is, master copies are taken to be originals (I've seen some of this with the early studies by deKooning). I don't think this is something that is done with a malicious purpose, however. It's just that the biographer/reviewer is simply ignorant of historical working practices or of history.

As an example, I am posting one of Picasso's earlier (age 12) studies. It is always wrongly attributed as a cast drawing. That is, it is said to be a drawing done from a cast of an antique statuary. Such was common practice at the time, yes. But, before doing cast work from the real thing, students normally executed a series of copies from two-dimensional drawing models which in turn were themselves often of antique statues. This one is such a case. It is a copy from Charles Bargue's fabulous "Cours de Dessin" pubished in the late 19th century by Goupil e Fils. I have also posted a photograph of the original Bargue lithograph for comparison in the following post.

Picasso's copy is mediocre at best. But, considering he was only 12 when he did it, it is excellent. Such things were done normally under supervision and were an everyday part of an academy's curriculum. So, I continue to find it hard to swallow that by the time he was 14, he could do the painting of the tall man, having only done Bargue copies two years earlier. That, coupled with the fact that his drawing of the matador--executed after the tall man--is a more immaturely wrought work than is the earlier painting, makes me think that these were all guided studies done by an admittedly precocious young fellow. Since he then quit studying when he was still in his teens, his somewhat later works reveal more accurately what his "true" drawing talents were when unguided. He seems to have had a solid foundation and good instruction as well as huge potential. But, that potential as a skilled representational artist went unrealised. The rest is history and I wouldn't change it for a minute.

Whether what I suggest here is accurate or not, one thing that does bother me a bit is that people are so quick to defend Picasso's later work on the basis of his apparent early skills. (Jim alluded to this phenomenon). The reason it bothers me is that we do not say such things about other artists. Do we say that in fact Velazquez or Leighton, for example, were not all that great because we point to their work as teenagers? No, we look at their mature work and judge it. With Picasso, Mondrian, etc., on the other hand, it seems okay to do the opposite I guess. I would say that that is having it both ways.

In the end, I could certainly be wrong about all of this and it might only be my envy speaking. However, considering also that by the time he was in his late teens/early twenties, Picasso's drawing was already weaker than it was in the "Salmeron" painting, yet still wholly representational, I'm going to stick to my theory that these very early works were tutored copies. Good ones, yes. But, not the independant hand that I believe most are inclined to suggest they were.

Anyway, food for thought.

All the best.

Juan