Feeder 3.2

Hey everyone! Today I’m going to compare an interpretation of Pablo Picasso’s famous painting, Guernica, to that of my own. Sometimes art is very straightforward and easy to interpret, other times it is deeper and has symbolic and/or metaphoric meanings to it. Unless the artist says what he or she means in the painting, nobody can truly know. Guernica is an interesting painting that tends to have several different interpretations.

In the article “Visual Analysis: Pablo Picasso, Guernica,” Nathan Beaver takes into consideration several aspects of the painting such as the scene that is depicted, the colors used, the size of the painting, and the lines and shapes present.

Overall Beaver is able to summarize the painting using the words “mayhem” and “destruction.” Even by taking a quick look at Guernica one can come to a similar conclusion. The injured horse, the dead soldier lying on the ground, the weeping mother holding her dead child in her arms, among others make this pretty indisputable.

He continues by explaining that the entire painting is “dark with cool colors and really no sign of warmth.” Considering the fact that the painting is black and white, I must disagree with the statement about the colors being “cool.” However, the painting does seems “dark” due to the amount of pain and overall negativity of the image. Beaver also states that through Picasso’s use of shading he is able to create the feeling of “space” between the figures. To me, though, the figures still seem jumbled, regardless of how Picasso shaded them.

Beaver continues by adding that the use of curved shapes and lines adds a sense of “unity” to the image. This aspect of the painting is hard for me to decide on; I feel that the lines and shapes could potentially symbolize unity, yet the context of the painting seems to contradict any sense of unity. To me the overlapping shapes and lines add to the “confusion” and “mayhem” Beaver talked about earlier. Some figures are hard to distinguish because they are overlapped and it can become quite confusing. Either way, both are plausible in my mind.

Also, according to Beaver the painting is very big (eleven feet tall and twenty-six feet across. He says that the sheer enormity of the painting made him feel engulfed by it and that it added to the power of it. I’ve only seen the image on my computer screen, and it even that was able to move me. I would agree that seeing the painting up close would make the viewer feel as though he or she was in the scene.

Overall many of the claims made by Nathan Beaver are plausible, though when interpreting paintings there is no right answer unless the painter explains the meaning behind the piece. Picasso rarely told the public the meanings behind his paintings, believing everyone should have their own opinions. Take a look at the photo below to decide what you think, and if you want to read Nathan Beaver’s full interpretation click the link below!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/770405/visual_analysis_pablo_picasso_guernica.html?cat=2

Also, HERE is a link to a picture of the painting.

-Jake