Introduction
Pablo Picasso, one of the most influential artists of the 20th century, offered profound insights into the nature of art and its interpretation. In his 1937 statement, he suggests that the compulsion to understand art may be misplaced, likening it to the instinctive appreciation of a bird’s song or the beauty of nature (Picasso, as cited in Chipp, 1988). This essay explores two central questions arising from Picasso’s philosophy: whether only artists can explain their work, and whether understanding art is necessary for its appreciation. Through a discussion of these topics within the context of art studies, this essay argues that while artists hold a unique perspective on their creations, appreciation of art does not hinge on intellectual understanding. Instead, emotional and sensory engagement often suffices. The arguments will be supported by academic sources and critical analysis, reflecting on Picasso’s views and broader art theory.
Can Only Artists Explain Their Work?
Picasso’s assertion that people attempting to explain pictures are “barking up the wrong tree” implies a scepticism towards external interpretations of art (Chipp, 1988, p. 487). Indeed, artists, as the creators, possess an intimate connection with their work, often embedding personal experiences, emotions, and intentions that may not be immediately accessible to viewers. For instance, Picasso’s own *Guernica* (1937) is steeped in political commentary on the Spanish Civil War, a context he lived through and felt deeply. His explanations of the painting’s symbolism—such as the bull representing brutality—provide insights that an outsider might not fully grasp without guidance (Martin, 2002).
However, this does not mean that only artists can explain art. Art historians, critics, and even viewers bring valuable perspectives informed by cultural, historical, and theoretical frameworks. Gombrich (1995) argues that interpretation is a collaborative process, where the viewer’s context and knowledge contribute to meaning-making. For example, while Picasso might explain the emotional impetus behind Guernica, a historian might contextualise it within the broader anti-war art movement of the 20th century. Thus, while artists offer a primary insight, alternative explanations are not necessarily invalid but rather complementary. This suggests that understanding art is a shared endeavour, albeit one where the artist’s voice carries significant weight.
Is Understanding Necessary to Appreciate Art?
Turning to the second question, Picasso’s comparison of art to natural phenomena like flowers or night implies that appreciation does not require intellectual comprehension (Chipp, 1988). This view aligns with aesthetic theories that prioritise sensory and emotional responses over analytical understanding. Kant (1790), for instance, in his *Critique of Judgment*, posits that aesthetic pleasure arises from a disinterested engagement with beauty, free from the need to conceptualise its purpose or meaning (Kant, as cited in Guyer, 2005). In this sense, a viewer might feel moved by the chaotic energy of Picasso’s *Les Demoiselles d’Avignon* (1907) without understanding its revolutionary impact on modern art or its references to African masks.
Nevertheless, some argue that understanding enhances appreciation. Knowledge of an artwork’s context—such as the socio-political turmoil behind Guernica—can deepen emotional resonance and reveal layers of meaning (Berger, 1972). Yet, this is not a prerequisite; art’s immediacy often lies in its visual and visceral impact. Generally, while understanding can enrich one’s experience, it remains secondary to the intuitive connection Picasso advocates. Therefore, appreciation can exist independently of explanation, aligning with his view that art should be felt rather than dissected.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Picasso’s 1937 reflection challenges conventional approaches to art by questioning the necessity of understanding and the exclusivity of interpretation. This essay has argued that while artists possess a unique ability to explain their work due to their personal involvement, other perspectives from critics and viewers are equally significant in constructing meaning. Furthermore, appreciation of art does not depend on intellectual understanding; rather, it can stem from instinctual, emotional responses, though knowledge may enhance the experience. These insights have broader implications for art education, suggesting that fostering emotional engagement alongside analytical skills could create a more holistic appreciation of art. Picasso’s philosophy, therefore, invites us to embrace art’s mystery, appreciating it as we do the unexplainable wonders of the world.
References
- Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. Penguin Books.
- Chipp, H. B. (1988) Picasso’s Guernica: History, Transformations, Meanings. University of California Press.
- Gombrich, E. H. (1995) The Story of Art. Phaidon Press.
- Guyer, P. (2005) Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom: Selected Essays. Cambridge University Press.
- Martin, R. (2002) Picasso’s War: The Destruction of Guernica and the Masterpiece That Changed the World. Dutton.
