It's commonplace to hear people comment on Picasso's paintings swearing that they can't guess why he is such a famous artist and that their children could produce even better pieces of art.
Does that mean that they are not blessed by the artistic vibe or that they cannot detect their offspring's unveiled talent?
Yes, he created Cubism. "So what? Was it is unique talent the art of convincing a mecene, fool enough to believe in his tales?" would you say.
I don't think so.
Reading books about Picasso, you will always find some lines claiming his endeavours to draw like a child. So, where is the truth? where is the true beauty?
Watching his first drafts and drawings, one can tell his skills in drawing and painting. Reproducing images, nuances and colours was definitely one of his gifts.
Now, I have a question for you. Once you know that you can draw anything, whatever you want just as (almost) everybody can see it, can you be satisfied? Don't you want to add your personal touch? To show how you see it, how you can see it? or just play with the codes and rules of what is art? It's like adding more or less salt in a recipe. Isn't it?
Picasso's genius is more about its creativity in art, its research in volumes, representations, mixing textures, mixing feeling also, than about aesthetics. The development of its art beyond drawings, painting to sculptures like Picasso's goat or impertinent collages is simply the demonstration of his appetite for creation, trying to put things up side down, to change perspectives to creation. Everything but not following a path.